^LIBR^ 


NORTH  CAROLINA  STATE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


S01 082644  P 


This  boo  |s  due  on  the  date  indicated 
below  and  is  subject  to  an  overdue 
fine  as  posted  at  the  circulation  desk. 


EXCEPTION:  Date  due  will  be 
earlier  if  this  item  is  RECALLED. 


150M/01  -92— 941680 


GOD-OR  GORILLA 

How  the  Monkey  Theory  of  Evolution  Exposes  Its 

Own  Methods,  Refutes  Its  Own  Principles, 

Denies  Its  Own  Inferences,  Disproves 

Its  Own  Case 


BY 


ALFRED  WATTERSON  McCANN 

Author  of  "Starving  America,"  "The  Failure  of  the 

Calory  in  Medicine,"  "This  Famishing  World," 

"The  Science  of  Eating,"  etc. 


NEW  YORK 

THE  DEVIN-ADAIR  COMPANY 


-Sk 


Copyright,  1922,  by 
THE  DEVIN-ADAIR  COMPANY 


All  Rights  Reserved  By 
The  Devin-Adair  Company 


PRINTED   IN    THE   UNITED    STATES    OF   AMERICA 


TO 
ALL  LOVERS  OF  TRUTH 


INTRODUCTION 

Incredible  but  True 

The  world  has  all  but  forgotten  the  "Moon  Hoax." 
Only  very  old  men  and  women  now  remember  those 
wonderful  discoveries  in  the  moon  by  Sir  John  Herschel 
in  his  observations  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  The 
1 '  facts ' '  were  first  published  by  Richard  Adams  Locke 
in  the  New  York  Sun  in  1835,  as  Ernst  Haeckel  and 
the  Darwinians  were  preparing  to  trifle  with  the  human 
mind  in  a  manner  unparalleled  in  history.  The  moon 
facts  were  so  plausibly  constructed  as  to  deceive  not 
only  the  public  at  large,  but  many  scientific  men. 
So  great  were  the  " wonders' '  that  they  were  published 
separately  in  various  editions  in  America  and  Europe. 
For  forty  years  men  talked  about  them  and  as  late  as 
1872  the  celebrated  English  mathematician,  Augustus 
De  Morgan,  declared  ("Budget  of  Paradoxes,"  Lon- 
don), that  the  real  lauthor  of  the  hoax  was  none  other 
than  J.  N.  Nicollet,  a  French  astronomer  in  the  United 
States. 

Of  far  greater  significance  and  of  more  enduring 
influence  is  the  ape-man  hoax  now  scattering  its  cor- 
ruptions throughout  the  world  and  impressing  its  de- 
ceptions upon  the  world's  "best  minds." 

Reaching  its  climax  in  1921,  the  ape-man  hoax  took 
the  form  of  a  seemingly  spontaneous  movement  to  re- 
establish the  theory  of  man's  monkey-origin.  Its 
astounding  pretensions  are  scarcely  less  remarkable 
than  the  strange  devices  employed  to  make  them  im- 
pressive, even  convincing,  to  an  uncritical  and  gullible 

vii 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

audience.  With  a  boldness  difficult  to  describe,  it  em- 
ploys the  arts  of  the  painter,  clay  modeller  and  sculp- 
tor, producing  effects  as  seemingly  plausible  as  they 
are_actually  startling.  Graphic  contrasts  and  "  re- 
semblances "  are  featured  with  an  incredible  disregard 
for  historical  fact  in  the  "reconstruction  of  progres- 
sive series"  designed  to  insinuate  well  marked  evolu- 
tionary changes  and  transitions  in  the  principal  stages 
of  man's  development  from  a  simian  ancestor. 

Journalists,  popular  writers,  school  teachers  and  pu- 
pils of  advanced  grades  are  the  chief  victims  of  this 
weird  compound  of  scientifically  flavored  catch  phrases 
and  extravagantly  fabricated  skeletal  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  the  theory  that  500,000  years  ago  a  huge  ape, 
which  was  not  gorilla,  chimpanzee,  orang  or  gibbon, 
became  the  father  of  an  ape-man  who  by  infinitesimal 
steps  over  gigantic  periods  of  time  gradually  lost  his 
ape  character  and  became  the  father  of  modern  man. 

All  the  exposed  and  discredited  "missing  links"  con- 
necting man  with  his  "unknown  simian  ancestor' '  are 
again  exhibited  as  if  they  possessed  an  untarnished 
pedigree. 

The  exhibitions  are  wholly  devoid  of  any  hint  of 
the  truth  that  would  inspire  the  student  to  question 
their  authenticity  or  to  challenge  their  genuineness. 
On  the  contrary  they  are  so  presented  as  to  impress 
the  novice  with  the  conclusion  that  here,  at  last,  are 
the  results  of  years  of  laborious  scientific  research. 

An  utter  lack  of  candor  characterizes  the  printed 
word  by  which  they  are  described.  The  subtle  omis- 
sions by  which  the  fanciful  labels  and  charts  accom- 
panying the  exhibits  are  distinguished  have  so  much 
significance  that  the  desired  effect  of  plausibility  is 
intensified  through  their  suppression. 

As  if  to  confirm  the  integrity  of  this  grotesque 
parody  on  science,  eminent  names  are  associated  with 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  seem  to  guarantee  to  the 
unsuspecting  an  assurance  of  finality. 

Astonishing  is  the  contention  of  well  known  editors 
and  educators  that  "the  case  for  evolution  has  been 
settled  for  all  time";  that  "man's  monkey-origin  has 
been  accepted  by  the  foremost  thinkers  of  the  world"; 
that  "crystallized  public  opinion  has  passed  favorable 
judgment  upon  it";  that  to  seem  to  challenge  this  ver- 
dict would  be  an  invitation  to  all  men  to  condemn  them 
as  narrow,  uninformed,  prejudiced,  even  ignorant. 

Thus  it  would  appear  that  the  very  men  who  are 
actively  engaged  in  the  formation  of  public  opinion 
are  themselves  unacquainted  with  the  truth  and  de- 
spite the  wide  circulation  given  to  the  falsehoods  are 
unprepared  to  scrutinize  the  bare  and  well  authenti- 
cated facts  or  to  pass  them  into  circulation. 

That  they  may  be  given  an  opportunity  to  compre- 
hend the  truly  ridiculous  character  of  the  fictions  they 
have  been  led  to  accept  as  l '  demonstrated  facts, ' '  the 
writer  has  undertaken  to  present  the  case  with  all  its 
astounding  features  as  they  have  been  acknowledged 
by  the  foremost  scientists  of  Europe  and  America. 

Many  scientific  men  will  be  angry  of  course,  but  as 
they,  themselves,  ared  oing  the  talking  and  as  they, 
themselves,  are  quoted  by  chapter,  verse  and  page, 
they  cannot  be  angry,  except  with  themselves.  Some 
of  them  will  not  publicly  applaud  an  exposure  which 
must  shake  our  entire  educational  system  to  the  core, 
but  many  of  them  will  secretly  rejoice  over  this  belated 
indictment  of  a  hoax  that  has  driven  scores  of  students 
through  vistas  of  morbidity  and  darkness,  unillumined 
save  by  false  lights  which  serve  merely  to  create  darker 
shadows,  into  a  tragedy  of  error  that  can  hardly  fail 
henceforth  to  misdirect  the  whole  course  of  their  lives. 

New  York,  December  25,  1921. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PA  01 

I    Making  the  Piltdown  Man 1 

Making  the  Piltdown  man — Unmaking  the  Piltdown 
man — "  Convincing  and  irrefutable ' ' — Starting  all  over 
— The  ape  in  the  picture — Materializing  a  phantom. 

II    The  Trinil  Ape-man 19 

The  Trinil  ape-man — Compounding  two  in  one — Hiding 
the  missing  links — Floods  and  sand-storms. 

III  The  Neanderthal  Man 33 

The  Neanderthal  man — Blacks  and  whites — Another 
correction — Manufacturing  ' '  progressive ' '  evidence — 
Not  a  solitary  fossil — Suppressing  contradictions — All 
true  men — Fate  of  a  scientific  freak — "  Historical 
facts"  and  falsehoods. 

IV  The  Last  Link 52 

The  last  link — Man  appeared  suddenly — The  spy  man — 
The  Krapina  man — The  man  of  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints 
— Brain  already  human — The  La  Quina  lady — The 
Heidelberg  man — Osborn  versus  Osborn. 

V    The  Gibraltar  Man 65 

The  Gibraltar  man — A  "  scientific ' '  explanation — The 
Maustier  man — The  Taubaeh  teeth — Other  jaws — Other 
Neanderthals — Wiping  them  out — Confusion  knows  no 
bounds — The  St.  Brelade  man — Osborn 's  dilemma. 

VI    A  Blighted  Ancestral  Tree 81 

A  blighted  ancestral  tree — At  the  end  of  a  sawed-off 
branch — The  Ehodesia  man — Whorls  and  straight  lines. 

VII    "Theologians"  Versus  "Scientists" 96 

"Theologians"  versus  "scientists" — Pasteur  and  God 
— Haeckel,  Darwin  and  the  critics. 

VIII    Hybrids,  Haeckel  and  Confusion 103 

Hybrids  abhorred  by  nature — Haeckel's  biogenetic  prin- 
ciple— Confounding  of  Species — From  egg  to  adult — 
Fish  gills  and  human  ear — "Absolutely  and  radically 
false.  * ' 

XI 


xii  TABLE  OP  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

IX    The  Swan  Song  of  Darwinism 116 

Climbing  down,  not  up! — The  death  of  Darwinism — The 
burial  of  Darwinism. 

X    The  Descent  of  Farce  Comedy 124 

Rudimentary  organs — Ape  blood  and  human  blood — 
Asses'  milk  and  human  milk — ' ' Eesemblanees ' '  are  dif- 
ferences. 

XI    H.  G.  Wells 137 

Repeating  old  tales — Reverence  for  bones — God  and  the 
sacraments — The  wild  women  of  Wells — Wells'  mutila- 
tion of  Wells. 

XII    Tricking  Huxley  and  the  World 153 

Tricking  Huxley  and  the  world — The  Osborn  conun- 
drums. 

XIII    What  is  a  Horse? 166 

Another  li striking  similarity" — Examining  the  horse — 
One  toe  evoluted  off — Is  a  horse  a  horse? — Ruining  the 
1 1  demonstration ' ' — ' '  Impossible, ' '  said  Darwin — Dar- 
win's  bewilderment. 

XIV    Complications 181 

Whale  progressing  backward — Wings,  hands  and  feet — 
Increasing  complications — Looking  to  De  Vries — Won- 
derful variations. 

XV    Chromosomes  and  Genes 193 

Chromosomes  and  genes — Seeking  gains — not  losses. 

XVI    Bateson — A  Brilliant  Light 205 

Bateson — a  brilliant  light — What's  the  matter  with  us? 
— Confusion  and  darkness — The  Standfuss  butterflies — 
Ants  and  their  guests. 

XVII    Psychical  Activity 214 

Psychical  activity — Evolution  and  music. 

XVIII    The  Mason  Bee 222 

The  Mason  bee — Not  a  gleam  of  intelligence— The  plan! 

XIX    Evolution  in  a  Muddle 231 

Man  alone  makes  progress. 

XX    An  Osborn  Letter 248 

Osborn 's  letter  on  McCann — "Evidence  of  conver- 
gence"— Relics  of  the  medieval  ages — Why  marsupials 
still? — Effect  of  misinformation. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XZI    St.  Augustine;  St.  Thomas 259 

St.  Augustine;  St.  Thomas — Science  and  romance — Os- 
born's  opinions  disregarded. 

XXII    Twelve  Earthy  Salts 269 

Twelve  earthy  salts — The  soulless  THING — The  chemic 
creed — Superstition  and  intolerance. 

XXIII  Evolution  Upside  Down 277 

Evolution  upside  down. 

XXIV  Those  "Six  Days' '  of  Creation 286 

Those  "six  days"  of  creation — The  geological  clocks — 
The  nebular  hypothesis — The  evidence  of  light — The 
evidence  of  water — The  evidence  of  land — The  evidence 
of  plants — The  evidence  of  sun,  moon  and  stars — The 
evidence  of  fish  and  fowl — The  evidence  of  beasts. 

XXV    The  Evidence  of  Man 305 

The  evidence  of  man. 

XXVI    The  Evolution  of  Evolutions 313 

The  evolution  of  evolutions — The  evolution  of  corrup- 
tion— The  right  of  might. 

APPENDIX 

Note  on  the  Word  "Day" 333 

Note  on  3,000,000  Years 335 

Note   on    the    Eye 337 

Note  on  the  Skull  of  Bruce 338 

Note  on  Original  Varieties 339 

Note  on  Placental   Shark 339 

Note  on  Flints  and  Fire 341 

Note  on   Ehodesian   Man    .............  345 

Note  on  Triassic  "Shoe" 351 

Note  on  "Fossilized" 357 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

FA  CINQ 
PAGE 

Another  View  of  Chimpanzee 2 

Red  Howler  Monkey 14 

Profile  View  of  Chimpanzee 20 

Gibbon 26 

Trinil  Ape  Man,  Neanderthal  Man,  Cro-Magnon  Man   ....  34 

Grandfather    Orang 46 

Skeletons  of  Man  and  Chimpanzee  Compared 56 

Gorilla's   Face 66 

Gorilla   Profile 78 

Ehodesian   Cave   Man's  Skull 86 

Natural  Walking  Posture  of  Gorilla 90 

Head  of  Galada  Baboon 106 

Sapajou 118 

Another  View  of  Grandfather   Orang 122 

Orang  Skull,   Human  Skull 134 

Chimpanzee  with  Arms  Shaved 156 

Skeleton  of  Horse  and  Man  Compared 166 

Rear  Hand   of   Gorilla 184 

Head    of    Orang 204 

Exceptional  View  of  Chimpanzee's  "Foot" 218 

Grizzly  Bear  Can  Be  Compelled  to  Stand  Upright 244 

Natural   Walking  Posture   of    Chimpanzee 262 

Excellent  View  of  Chimpanzee  Countenance 284 

Skeletons  of  Polar  Bear,  Lion  and  Ruffled  Lemur 300 

Orang  in  Thoughtful  Mood 306 

"Foot"  from  Which  the  Human  Foot  Evolved 318 

Gorilla  Forehand  in  Walking  Position 332 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  IN  APPENDIX 


1.  Skeleton  of  Gorilla  in  Upright  Position 

2.  Cervical  Spines  of  Gorilla 

3.  Pear  Shape  of  Gorilla  Thorax 

4.  Gorilla  Skeleton  in  Natural  Walking  Posture 

5.  Gorilla  Scapula  and  Pelvis 

6.  Gorilla    Arms    and    Legs 

7.  Skulls  of  Gorilla,  Man  and  Orang 

8.  Skull  Crests  of  Apes 

9.  Profiles  of  Three  Skulls 

10.  Brain  Pans  and  Jaws 

11.  Profile   of   Man   and   Gorilla 

12.  Three  Skull  Caps 

13.  Two    Skull    Caps 

14.  Two  Skulls  Without  Jaws 

15.  Skulls  and  Jaws  of  Man  and  Orang 

16.  Jaws  of  Orang  and  Man 

17.  Two    Skull    Bases 

18.  Triassic   Shoe   Sole  Fossil 

19.  Under-Side  of  Triassic  Fossil 


Following 
page  352 


GOD— OR  GORILLA 

CHAPTER  I 

Making  the  Piltdown  Man 

Making  the  Piltdown  man — Unmaking  the  Piltdown  man — "Convincing 
and  irrefutable ' ' — Starting  all  over — The  ape  in  the  picture — Ma- 
terializing a,  phantom. 

In  four  glass  cases  in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man, 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York 
City,  Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn  exhibits  "evi- 
dence" of  man's  ape-origin.  In  case  No.  2  he  has 
mounted  a  bust  of  the  Piltdown  man  conceived  and  ex- 
ecuted by  Professor  J.  H.  McGregor.  The  bust  is 
described  as  a  "restoration,"  a  "missing  link,"  a 
sort  of  "side  branch  of  the  human  family  which  has 
left  no  descendants  at  all." 

As  presented  to  the  uninitiated,  the  Piltdown  man 
is  half-ape,  half-human.  This  half-and-half  mixture 
is  designed  to  impress  the  high  school  students  and 
their  teachers,  visiting  the  Museum  in  ever  increasing 
numbers,  with  the  conclusion  that  a  creature  whose 
skull-cap  is  human  but  whose  jaw  is  the  jaw  of  an 
ape  must,  of  course,  be  looked  upon  as  "man  half  way 
along  his  journey  from  the  simian  to  the  human  stage." 

The  Piltdown  man  is  thus  an  instance  of  the  "evo- 
lution" of  man  from  monkey;  an  instance  of  "the 
forming  of  the  human  species;"  an  instance  of  "de- 


scent. ' ' 


1 


2  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Professor  Vernon  Kellogg  of  Leland  Stanford  Uni- 
versity reflects  the  consensus  of  modern  scientific 
belief  in  all  instances  in  which  the  phrase  Natural  Se- 
lection is  used  in  a  specific  sense.  Examining  the  Pilt- 
down  man  we  are  stunned  when,  reading  his  ( Kel- 
logg's)  "Darwinism  Today/ y  1908,  p.  18,  we  find  these 
words :  ' '  Speaking  by  and  large  we  only  tell  the  gen- 
eral truth  when  we  declare  that  no  indubitable  cases 
of  species-forming  or  transforming,  that  is,  of  de- 
scent, have  been  observed;  and  that  no  recognized 
cases  of  natural  selection  really  selecting  have  been 
observed. 

"I  hasten  to  repeat  the  names  of  the  An  con  sheep, 
the  Paraguay  cattle,  the  Porto  Santo  rabbit,  the  Ar- 
teinias  of  Schmankewitch,  and  the  De  Vriesian  even- 
ing primroses  to  show  that  I  know  my  list  of  classic 
possible  exceptions  to  this  denial  of  observed  species- 
forming,  and  to  refer  to  Weldon's  broad  and  narrow 
fronted  crabs  as  a  case  of  what  may  be  an  observa- 
tion of  selection  at  work.  But  such  a  list,  even  if  it 
could  be  extended  to  a  score,  or  to  a  hundred,  of  cases, 
is  ludicrous  as  objective  proof  of  that  descent  and  se- 
lection, under  whose  domination  the  forming  of  mil- 
lions of  species  is  supposed  to  have  occurred." 

After  a  discussion  of  "the  distinctly  ponderable 
character  of  the  anti-Darwinian  ranks,' '  he  concludes 
(p.  29)  with  the  following  astonishing  quotation: 
"For  my  part  it  seems  better  to  go  back  to  the  old  and 
safe  Ignoramus  standpoint.' ' 

This  modern  scientific  observation,  surprising  as  it 
may  seem  to  those  who  persist  in  loosely  characteriz- 
ing themselves  as  Darwinians,  is  marked  by  extreme 
candor.  Professor  Kellogg  is  not  unconscious  of  the 
fact  that  there  appears  to  be  considerable  evidence 
that  some  kind  of  selection  is  constantly  going  on  in 
nature,  and  that  this  process  in  some  manner  contrib- 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Another  view  of  chimpanzee.  Note  thumb  on  "foot''  where  big 
toe  ought  to  be,  and  stump  of  thumb  on  hand  where  a  reaJ 
thumb  would   be   useful. 


GOD—OR  GORILLA  3 

utes  to  the  preservation  of  differentiations  and  vari- 
ations. He  is  not  ignorant  of  the  phenomenon  with 
which  bacteriologists  are  familiar.  For  this  reason 
we  are  compelled  to  take  another  look  at  the  Piltdown 
man  in  order  to  arrive  at  an  explanation  of  the  motive 
behind  his  extraordinary  appearance  in  the  Hall  of 
the  Age  of  Man.  Regardless  of  the  vagueness  and 
the  complications,  to  say  nothing  of  the  contradictions 
and  the  biological  stumbling  blocks  in  their  path,  the 
"monkey  evolutionists ' '  are  still  tireless  in  their  ef- 
fort to  support  the  ape-man  theory.  Driven  from 
anchorage  to  anchorage  they  are  thus  compelled  to 
take  a  solemn  stand  on  what  they  call  the  evidence 
of  palaeontology. 

Seemingly  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  disgraceful 
history  of  the  Piltdown  man,  which  we  are  about  to 
review  briefly,  has  been  so  far  forgotten  as  to  make 
it  safe  to  present  his  "restoration"  to  this  generation 
as  a  gentleman  of  quality  rather  than  as  the  discredited 
hoax  he  has  been  shown  to  be.  Boldness  is  character- 
istic of  the  champions  of  any  theory  that  appears  to 
hold  captive  the  public  mind.  Consequently  the  prom- 
inence given  to  the  Piltdown  man  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  assumption  that  the  public  mind  appears 
to  want  this  sort  of  thing  and  will  have  it  without 
question  despite  the  fact  that  it  died  and  was  buried 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  World  War,  in  which  con- 
flict, as  we  shall  see,  it  was  deeply  involved.  The 
depth  of  this  involvement  is  as  startling  as  it  is  ap- 
palling. The  evidence,  to  be  disclosed  later,  is  as  ir- 
refutable as  it  is  horrible ;  as  incredible  as  irrefutable. 

In  propping  up  the  ape-jaw  and  human-cranium  of 
the  "reconstructed"  Piltdown  man  the  opinions  of 
various  scientific  authorities  are  set  forth  with  such 
flourishes  as  to  insinuate  the  impression  that  the  sci- 
entists are  singularly  agreed  among  themselves  in  the 


4  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

matter  of  Mr.  Piltdown  's  affairs  and  their  significance. 

Neither  in  the  public  exhibition  of  this  "missing 
link,''  nor  in  the  public  exhibition  of  any  of  the  other 
" missing  links,"  are  the  school  children  or  their  teach- 
ers informed  that  all  along  the  line,  leading  to  the  in- 
geniously fabricated  "finality"  before  them,  are  sharp 
and  emphatic  contradictions  sponsored  by  distin- 
guished scientists.  They  are  kept  in  ignorance  of  the 
fact  that  these  scientists  have  not  only  exposed  the 
distortions,  the  mutilations  and  the  gross  inventions 
with  which  some  of  their  colleagues  have  sought  to 
stretch  vehement  and  hectic  opinions  from  the  nebula 
of  unsupported  theory  to  the  crystals  of  established 
fact,  but  have  also  announced  that  there  is  no  warrant 
at  all  for  the  weird  interpretations  so  painfully  elab- 
orated on  the  Piltdown  remains. 

The  simple  facts  of  the  "discovery"  of  the  Piltdown 
man  are  these :  Walking  along  a  farm  road  close  to 
Piltdown  Common,  Fletching  (Sussex),  Mr.  Charles 
Dawson  "noticed  that  the  road  had  been  mended  with 
some  peculiar  brown  flints  not  usual  in  the  district." 

On  inquiry  he  was  "astonished"  to  learn  that  they 
had  been  dug  from  a  gravel  bed  on  the  farm.  Daw- 
son vaguely  fixes  the  time  of  his  Sherlock  Holmes-like 
observation  and  the  "astonishment"  that  followed  as 
"several  years  ago."  Considering  the  date  of  his  rev- 
elation (December  18,  1912),  it  would  appear  that 
the  "discovery"  was  made  some  time  in  1909  or  1910, 
when  the  faculties  of  observation,  attributed  by  Sir  A. 
Conan  Doyle  to  the  extraordinary  detective  whose 
powers  of  deduction  have  solved  so  many  baffling 
mysteries,  were  still  stirring  the  imagination  of  ro- 
mancers the  world  over. 

At  any  rate,  "shortly  afterwards"  Mr.  Charles 
Dawson  visited  the  place  and  found  two  laborers  dig- 
ging gravel.     He  asked  them  if  they  had  found  any 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  5 

bones  or  other  fossils.  They  had  not  done  so.  He 
urged  them  to  preserve  anything  they  might  find  in 
the  future. 

Upon  one  of  his  " subsequent' '  visits  a  laborer 
handed  him  a  small  portion  of  unusually  thick  human 
parietal  bone  that  looked  as  if  it  might  be  300,000 
years  old.  Note  the  use  of  the  word  " human.' ' 
Never  mind  the  age.  Mr.  Dawson  immediately  made 
a  search  but  could  find  nothing  more. 

It  was  not  until  "some  years  later,"  in  the  autumn 
of  1911,  on  another  visit  to  the  spot,  that  he  picked  up 
another  and  larger  piece  of  bone  belonging  to  the 
frontal  region  of  a  skull,  including  a  portion  of  the 
ridge  extending  over  the  left  eyebrow. 

Mr.  Dawson  took  the  bones  to  Dr.  A.  Smith  Wood- 
ward of  the  British  Museum.  There  was  much  talk. 
Then  several  laborers  were  employed  to  make  a  sys- 
tematic search  among  the  spoil  heaps  and  gravel. 
Every  particle  of  the  gravel  in  the  pit  was  sifted.  The 
total  results  consisted  of  a  piece  of  a  jaw  bone,  an- 
other small  piece  of  occipital  bone  from  the  skull,  and 
a  canine  tooth.  With  these  fragments,  which  a  juggler 
could  conceal  in  the  palm  of  one  hand,  the  scientists 
"reconstructed"  the  Piltdown  man,  and  at  once  pro- 
claimed it  to  be  a  new  genus  which  they  proceeded  to 
call  Eoanthropus  or  "Dawn  Man,"  naming  the  spe- 
cies "Dawsoni"  in  honor  of  the  discoverer. 

To  make  the  thing  as  sensational  as  possible  it  was 
necessary  to  reconstruct  very  closely  along  ape  lines, 
for  the  nearer  the  "reconstruction  could  be  pushed 
toward  the  brute,  the  more  convincing  would  it  be  as 
"scientific  evidence"  in  support  of  the  "missing  link' 
theory. 

It  wouldn't  do  to  let  the  brain-pan  of  the  Piltdown 
man  hold  too  much  brain  matter.  An  ape  skull  on 
the  one  hand  with  a  c.c.  capacity  of  600  and  a  modern 


6  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

human  skull  on  the  other  hand  with  a  c.c.  capacity  of 
1500  would  suggest  that  a  half-ape  and  a  half-man 
should  have  a  c.c,  capacity  of  about  1050,  " which  fig- 
ure would  show  a  tremendous  advance  along  evolution- 
ary lines  from  the  ape  and  a  certain  half-way  approach 
toward  modern  man." 

What  could  be  more  eloquent  as  a  link — a  "missing 
link"? 

Dr.  A.  Smith  Woodward  and  Mr.  Charles  Dawson 
made  their  calculations  and  gave  to  their  Piltdown 
man  a  brain  capacity  very  accurately  and  very  pre- 
cisely fixed  at  1070  ex.  It  suited  all  the  requirements 
exactly. 

Unmaking  the  Piltdown  Man 

In  August,  1913,  the  British  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science  discussed  the  Piltdown  frag- 
ments which  by  this  time  included  two  molar  teeth  and 
two  nasal  bones.  Then  came  the  exposure  of  Profes- 
sor Arthur  Keith,  curator  of  the  Museum  of  the  Royal 
College  of  Surgeons,  London.  Professor  Keith  dem- 
onstrated that  the  brain  capacity  of  the  Piltdown 
skull  was  nearer  1500  c.c.  than  1070  c.c. 

New  "reconstructions,' '  based  on  this  exposure,  by 
Professor  McGregor  and  Professor  Woodward  have 
resulted  in  the  admission,  as  reported  by  Dr.  Ales 
Hrdlicka,  curator  of  the  Division  of  Physical  Anthro- 
pology, United  States  National  Museum,  Washington, 
D.  C,  that  the  capacity  of  Mr.  Piltdown  's  cranium  is 
now  estimated  at  approximately  1300  c.c.  It  began 
to  appear  that  the  " human' '  touch,  so  deftly  applied 
when  the  thing  was  first  described,  was  going  to  re- 
act with  unexpected  embarrassment.  The  figures  1300 
were  not  as  close  to  600  as  might  be  desired.    They 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  7 

were  entirely  too  far  apart  for  the  comfort  of  a  "half- 
man,  half-ape.' ' 

The  original  reconstructors  not  only  wanted  a  near- 
ape  skull  which  has  now,  alas,  vanished  in  their  hands, 
but  they  also  wanted  an  ape-like  face  and  jaw.  So 
they  put  their  solitary  canine  tooth  on  the  right  side 
of  the  lower  jaw  at  an  angle  suggestive  of  the  ape. 
This  also  suited  the  requirements  exactly. 

But  along  came  Professor  W.  K.  Gregory  and  Pro- 
fessor G.  S.  Miller,  writing  respectively  in  the  Am. 
Miis.  Journ.,  vol.  14,  1914,  pp.  189-200,  and  Smithso- 
nian Misc.  Coll.,  vol.  65,  No.  12,  Nov.  1915,  in  which 
they  pointed  out  the  necessity  of  further  important 
modifications  of  the  "reconstruction"  based  on  the 
fact  that  the  tooth  described  and  used  as  the  right 
lower  canine  was  no  lower  tooth  of  any  kind  at  all, 
and  no  right  tooth  either,  but  a  left  tooth  and  an  upper 
tooth  at  that! 

The  scientists  who  couldn't  properly  fix  the  position 
of  the  only  canine  tooth  in  their  possession  were  never- 
theless very  definite  in  fixing  the  stratified  gravel  of 
the  Piltdown  fragments  as  "in  the  main  composed  of 
Pliocene  drift,  probably  reconstructed  in  the  Pleisto- 
cene epoch."  They  wanted  the  Pliocene  for  purposes  of 
greater  antiquity.  But,  along  came  Professor  W.  Boyd 
Dawkins  showing  that  the  time  could  not  be  earlier 
than  Pleistocene,  because  of  the  presence  in  the  Pilt- 
down deposits  of  an  antler  of  red  deer  absolutely  un- 
known in  the  Pliocene  of  Europe  but  abundant  in  the 
Pleistocene  and  later  periods.  This  was  too  bad  en- 
tirely, for  it  necessitated  another  reconstruction  in 
which  several  hundred  thousand  years  had  to  be 
knocked  off  the  alleged  age  of  Mr.  Piltdown. 

Not  only  have  the  scientists  themselves  objected  to 
the  arbitrary,  dogmatic  and  wholly  unwarranted  re- 
construction of  the  Piltdown  man  on  the  ground  that 


8  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

the  teeth  do  not  belong  at  all  to  the  same  skull,  but 
that  the  jaw  itself  could  not  in  any  way  be  associated 
with  the  skull. 

Using  the  words  of  Professor  Ales  Hrdlicka  from 
the  Smithsonian  report  for  1913,  pp.  491-552,  repub- 
lished by  the  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington, 
D.  C,  1916,  we  hobble  into  a  new  pit  of  confusion  and 
chaos.  He  says:  "The  most  important  development 
in  the  study  of  the  Piltdown  remains  is  the  recent  well 
documented  objection  by  Professor  Gerrit  S.  Miller 
of  the  United  States  National  Museum  to  the  classing 
together  of  the  lower  jaw  and  the  canine  with  the  cra- 
nium. According  to  Miller,  who  had  ample  anthropoid 
as  well  as  human  material  for  comparison,  the  jaw  and 
tooth  belong  to  a  fossil  chimpanzee." 

This  is  a  heart-breaking  admission  coming,  as  it 
does,  from  a  scientist  as  eminent  as  Miller,  and  even 
more  heart-breaking  is  the  admission  made  by  Hrdlicka 
himself,  when  he  urges  that  none  of  the  conclusions 
regarding  the  Piltdown  man  should  be  accepted,  and 
that  all  hypotheses  relating  to  it  must  be  regarded  as 
more  or  less  premature. 

Here  we  have  a  skull  with  a  capacity,  now  admitted 
by  Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn  himself,  of  1300 
c.c.  well  above  the  capacity  of  many  white  normal 
human  skulls  of  today,  and  far  above  that  of  the  aver- 
age Australian.  The  missing-link  was  skidding  clum- 
sily. 

No  wonder  the  great  German  anatomist,  G.  Schwalbe, 
so  frequently  quoted  by  Professor  Osborn,  had  to 
abandon  the  "missing  link"  opinion  so  picturesquely 
and  noisily  voiced  as  a  scientific  fact  when  he  declared 
that  "the  proper  restoration  of  the  Piltdown  frag- 
ments would  make  them  belong  not  to  any  preceding 
stage  of  man,  but  to  a  well  developed,  good  sized  Homo 
sapiens,  the  true  man  of  today."    Why  are  such  facts 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  9 

as  these  withheld  from  the  young  student  and  from 
his  teacher  if  truth  is  really  an  objective? 

Before  the  transfer  of  the  misused  canine  from  the 
lower  jaw,  where  it  had  no  business,  to  the  upper  jaw, 
where  it  belonged,  the  scientists  laid  special  emphasis 
on  that  all-important  canine  tooth.  It  justified  them 
in  asserting  that  "the  skull  represented  an  entirely 
new  type  of  man  in  the  making"  and  upon  this  plan 
of  wholly  gratuitous  invention  they  established  their 
ape-like  jaw  and  ape-like  face  crowned  with  a  human 
skull.  Moreover,  they  were  dealing  with  the  mandible 
of  a  chimpanzee  which,  according  to  the  evidence, 
never  lived  in  the  British  Isles  in  any  age,  although 
when  one  was  wanted,  to  fit  a  human  skull,  it  was  not 
difficult  to  find  it  in  an  English  gravel  bed ! 

"Convincing  and  Ikrefutable" 

The  Piltdown  remains  disclose  the  ease  with  which 
"missing  links"  between  apes  and  men  can  be  fab- 
ricated by  resort  to  wide  stretches  of  imagination  in 
support  of  pre-conceived  opinions.  The  materialistic 
evolutionists,  who  have  misrepresented  the  Piltdown 
man  and  all  that  they  have  sought  to  make  it  signify, 
are  careful  not  to  refer  to  the  English  authorities  in 
the  biological  sciences  who  discussed  all  the  Piltdown 
remains  upon  the  first  report  of  their  discovery  to  the 
Geological  Society  of  London,  December,  1912.  They 
avoid  all  mention  of  the  fact  that  even  at  that  early 
date  the  English  authorities  refused  to  accept  the 
cranium  and  jaw  as  belonging  to  the  same  individual. 

Sir  Ray  Lankester,  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  bib- 
liography of  the  1921,  third  edition,  of  Professor  Os- 
born's  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  although  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  of  English  scientists,  emphati- 
cally denied  the  claim  of  Mr.  Dawson  and  Dr.  A.  Smith 


10  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Woodward  on  the  ground  that  the  jaw  and  the  skull 
had  never  belonged  to  the  same  creature. 

Professor  David  Waterston  of  the  University  of 
London,  Kings  College,  assisted  in  the  exposure  of 
the  extraordinary  claims  made  for  the  Dawn  Man  by 
confirming  the  analysis  of  Sir  Ray  Lankester  on  the 
ground  that  "the  mandible  was  obviously  that  of  a 
chimpanzee,  while  the  fragments  of  the  skull  were  hu- 
man in  all  their  characters. ' ' 

Eleven  months  later  Professor  Waterston  published 
a  scientific  paper  (Nature,  November  13,  1913,  p.  319), 
in  which  he  observed  that  "to  refer  the  jaw  bone  and 
the  cranium  of  the  Piltdowir  remains  to  the  same  in- 
dividual would  be  exactly  equivalent  to  articulating  a 
chimpanzee  foot  with  the  bones  of  a  human  thigh  and 
leg. 

"The  outlines  of  the  Piltdown  jaw  are  identical  with 
those  of  a  chimpanzee  jaw.  The  molar  teeth  (of  the 
jaw)  are  identical  with  the  ape  form.  The  cranial 
fragments  on  the  other  hand  are  in  practically  all  their 
details  essentially  human." 

Since  June  16,  1921,  Professor  W.  D.  Matthew  of 
the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  has  been 
desirous  of  "heading  off  any  bad  influence  that  the 
writer's  articles  (calling  attention  to  these  exposures) 
may  have."  January  21,  1916,  Professor  Matthew  de- 
clared in  a  scientific  paper  published  in  Science, 
that  Professor  Gerrit  S.  Miller's  report  as  to  the  abso- 
lute identity  of  the  Piltdown  jaw  as  the  jaw  of  a 
chimpanzee  was  "convincing  and  irrefutable,"  while 
Professor  George  Grant  MacCurdy  of  Yale  University, 
writing  in  Science,  February  18,  1916,  p.  228-231, 
spoke  of  the  humiliating  Piltdown  exposure  in  broad 
terms,  referring  to  the  thing  as  a  creature  ' '  robbed  of 
a  muzzle  that  ill  became  him." 

Why  was  not  one  of  the  937,000  persons  who,  ac- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  11 

cording  to  its  own  report  visited  the  American  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History  in  1920,  given  any  hint  of 
the  information  thus  revealed?  If  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  is  the  chaste  objective 
of  science,  how  are  the  professors  of  the  American 
Museum  to  explain  the  wholly  misleading  compound 
of  indirection,  innuendo  and  suppression  now  posing 
in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  asau  scientific  fact ' '  ? 

Why  do  the  Piltdown  disciples  ignore  Professor 
George  Grant  MacCurdy  of  the  Archaeological  De- 
partment of  Yale  University?  Writing  in  Science, 
February  18, 1916,  Professor  MacCurdy  completely  de- 
molished the  Piltdown  hoax  in  a  fewT  wTell-chosen 
phrases. 

He  said:  " Regarding  the  Piltdown  specimens  we 
have  at  last  reached  a  position  that  is  tenable.  The 
cranium  is  human,  as  was  recognized  by  all  in  the  be- 
ginning. On  the  other  hand,  the  mandible  and  the  ca- 
nine tooth  are  those  of  a  fossil  chimpanzee.  This 
means  that  in  place  of  Eoanthropus  Dawsoni  (the  Pilt- 
down missing  link)  we  have  two  individuals  belonging 
to  different  genera.' '  Instead  of  an  incipient  Dawn 
Man  we  have  a  comic  cartoon  under  the  caption, ' '  Good 
night,  Mr.  Dawson.' ' 

Starting  All  Over 

The  writer  suffers  quite  as  much  amazement  as  that 
reported  by  Mr.  Dawson,  to  discover  the  1921  illus- 
trations of  the  Piltdown  man  as  they  continue,  un- 
ashamed, to  adorn  pages  142,  143  and  145  of  Professor 
Henry  Fairfield  Osborn's  latest  contribution  to  science. 

Says  Osborn,  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age"): 
"  Elliott  Smith  concluded  that  members  of  the  Pilt- 
down race  might  well  have  been  the  direct  ancestors 
of  the  existing  species  of  man,  thus  affording  a  direct 


12  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

link  with  undiscovered  Tertiary  apes;  whereas  the 
more  recent  fossil  men  of  the  Neanderthal  type,  with 
prominent  brow  ridges  resembling  those  of  the  exist- 
ing apes,  may  have  belonged  to  a  degenerate  race 
which  later  became  extinct. 

"According  to  this  view  Eoanthropus  (the  Piltdown 
man)  represents  a  persistent  and  very  slightly  modi- 
fied descendant  of  the  type  of  Tertiary  man  which  was 
the  common  ancestor  of  a  branch  giving  rise  to  Homo 
sapiens  (existing  species  of  men),  on  the  one  hand  and 
of  another  branch  giving  rise  to  Homo  neanderthalen- 
sis  (half -ape,  half -man)  on  the  other. 

"Another  theory,"  continues  Osborn,  "as  to  the  re- 
lationships of  Eoanthropus  is  that  of  Marcelin  Boule, 
who  is  inclined  to  regard  the  jaws  of  the  Piltdown  and 
Heidelberg  races  as  of  similar  geologic  age  but  of  dis- 
similar racial  type.  If  the  skull  and  jaw  of  Piltdown 
belong  to  the  same  individual"  (note  the  persistence 
of  that  if,  if,  if,  even  though  no  sense  of  shame  accom- 
panies it)  "and  if  the  mandibles  of  the  Heidelberg 
and  Piltdown  men  are  of  the  same  type,  this  discovery 
is  most  valuable  in  establishing  the  cranial  structure 
of  the  Heidelberg  race." 

In  spite  of  all  the  evidence  to  the  contrary,  they 
start  all  over  again,  fresh  and  undismayed,  with  a 
new  premise  of  if,  if,  if,  and  immediately  in  the  same 
sentence  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  "if"  shoots 
itself  like  a  projectile  from  a  gun,  "This  discovery  is 
most  valuable!!!"  Read  the  preceding  paragraph 
again  if  you  would  appreciate  the  grim  humor  of  this 
"scientific"  reference  to  "this  discovery." 

Again  quoting  Boule,  Osborn  says :  "But  it  appears 
rather  that  we  have  here  two  types  of  man  which  lived 
in  Chellean  times,  both  distinguished  by  very  low 
cranial  characters.  Of  these  the  Piltdown  race  seems 
to  us  the  probable  ancestor  in  the  direct  line  of  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  13 

recent  species  of  man,  Homo  sapiens ;  while  the  Heidel- 
berg race  may  be  considered,  until  we  have  further 
knowledge,  as  a  possible  precursor  of  Homo  neander- 
thalensis."     Astonishing,  indeed,  as  we  shall  see. 

First  they  construct  a  half-ape  and  a  half-man, 
drawing  conclusions  from  their  own  fancies  which  are 
arrogantly  described  as  "established  fact."  Then 
along  come  scientists  from  all  parts  of  Europe  and 
America,  distinguished,  honest,  truth-loving  explorers 
of  man's  history,  and  knock  the  ape  out  of  the  recon- 
struction. 

The  Ape  in  the  Picture 

However,  the  ape  was  once  in  the  formula  and  thus 
served  a  purpose,  for  though  now  kicked  out,  the  res- 
torations go  right  on  in  all  their  apishness,  as  if  nothing 
had  happened,  and  the  world  is  informed  that  the  Pilt- 
down  race  (half -ape,  half  man)  is  the  probable  ances- 
tor in  the  direct  line  of  the  recent  species  of  man,  while 
the  Heidelberg  race,  to  which  we  shall  shortly  give  at- 
tention, is  the  possible  ancestor  of  the  degenerate  and 
now  extinct  Neanderthal  (half-ape,  half -man)  crea- 
ture. 

That  Professor  Osborn  should  pass  along  as  "scien- 
tific" such  meaningless  catchwords  of  Boule  is  no  long- 
er surprising  for  the  reason  that  the  same  Boule  pro- 
vides the  data  upon  which  Professor  Charles  Knight, 
associated  with  Professor  Osborn,  wrote  his  amazing 
article  on  the  Neanderthal  half -ape,  half-human  crea- 
ture who  was  the  immediate  predecessor  of  modern 
man,  published  in  the  June,  1921,  number  of  Popular 
Science  Monthly. 

It  was  in  this  article  on  "experiments  in  man-mak- 
ing,''  not  fantastic  but  "actually  scientific" — in  fact 
"the  very  last  word  in  pure  science" — that  Professor 


14  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Knight  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 
author  of  the  tremendous  illustrations  served  up  to 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  children  annually,  declared : 
"  As  he  stands  before  us  in  all  his  primeval  shagginess, 
grasping  his  heavy  wooden  spear  in  the  moonlight — 
and  so  I  have  shown  him  in  my  drawing  on  the  oppo- 
site page — he  thrills  us.  This  is  our  ancestor;  this  is 
the  creature  from  which  we  evolved ;  this  thing  is  bone 
of  our  bone,  flesh  of  our  flesh.  We  are  stirred  by  his 
passions  (his  in  italics),  urged  on  by  his  nameless 
instincts  (his  in  italics).  Forty  thousand  years 
separate  us  from  him.  But  millions  of  years  separate 
him  from  still  lower  animals.  He  stands  close  to  us — 
this  cunning,  fighting,  hunting,  ferocious  Neanderthal 
man." 

Professor  Knight,  describing  his  gorilla-like  crea- 
ture, (he  uses  the  phrase  "gorilla-like"),  as  a  thing 
by  actual  measurement  standing  five  feet,  two  inches 
in  height,  relies  for  his  data  upon  this  same  Marcelin 
Boule,  who  in  his  "Annales  de  Palaeontologie,"  vol. 
7,  1912,  p.  117,  estimates  the  stature  of  the  Neander- 
thal man  as  identical  with  that  of  the  Spy  man,  whom 
we  shall  also  come  to  later.  But  Professor  Ales  Hrd- 
licka  in  his  "The  Most  Ancient  Skeletal  Remains  of 
Man,"  says,  p.  38:  "This  (measurement  of  Boule) 
is  evidently  based  on  erroneous  data  concerning  the 
length  of  the  bones.  However,  even  the  most  precise 
estimate  in  this  line  can  only  be  gross,  though  useful, 
approximations,  for  we  know  but  little  of  the  length  of 
the  trunk  of  these  skeletons." 

At  this  point  one  would  think  the  materialistic  evo- 
lutionists would  pause  in  their  persistent  efforts  to 
bolster  their  pet  theory  enough  to  make  it  comfortable. 
Even  though  complete  skeletons,  instead  of  fragments 
fancifully  reconstructed,  could  be  found,  they  would 
mean  absolutely  nothing  unless  the  absurd  conclusions 


'•= 

© 

43 

3 

-_ 

^H 

I 

^ 

■_ 

0J 

~ 

= 

43 

- 

~— 

+* 

w 

F— ^ 

.^- 

~ 

-t- 

X      / 

•/.  a 

~  - 

+3   "H 

—  h 

-  7 

— » 

— 

<E  — 

fl  — 

z 

0 

DO     >. 

r.    - 

£^ 

— 

^-« 

+s    ^ 

H 

r. 

^—i 

'=    :'- 

_    = 

®   d 

•  —    -_ 

DO   — 

—     — 

r- 

^3    b3 

^  '— 

■  — ■ 

~ 

© 

__ 

.c 

-*-- 

> 

|%°C 

.-- 

>. 

•-  — 

- 

o    . 

^6 

- 

"•a      ZT 

Z 

~. 

0» 

c    ^. 

Fh 

Q   *"^ 

^ 

© 

*t 

0 

&  £ 

— 

§  a 

— 

**   c 

—   c 

— 

« 

GOD— OR  GORILLA  15 

that  all  men  are  cast  in  the  same  uniform  mould,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  measurements  of  any  one  of  them 
apply  with  equal  accuracy  to  all  the  others,  are  to  be 
gratuitously  accepted. 

At  this  writing  (July,  1921)  Mr.  Jimmy  Wilde  is 
the  world's  champion  fly-weight  pugilist.  He  weighs 
108  pounds  and  is  five  feet,  two  and  one-half  inches 
high.  Mr.  Jess  Willard,  ex-heavy-weight  champion 
pugilist  weighed  in  the  ring  250  pounds  and  is  six  feet, 
six  inches  high. 

Between  these  two  extremes  are  to  be  found  Mr. 
Johnny  Kilbane,  world  champion  feather-weight  pu- 
gilist, 122  pounds,  five  feet,  five  inches;  Mr.  Benny 
Leonard,  world  champion  light-weight  pugilist,  135 
pounds,  five  feet,  five  inches ;  Mr.  Jack  Britton,  world 
champion  welter-weight  pugilist,  145  pounds,  five  feet, 
eight  inches;  Mr.  Johnny  Wilson,  world  champion 
middle-weight  pugilist,  158  pounds,  five  feet,  ten 
inches;  Monsieur  Georges  Carpentier,  French  heavy- 
weight pugilist,  170  pounds,  five  feet,  eleven  and  one- 
half  inches ;  Mr.  Jack  Dempsey,  conqueror  of  Mr.  Jess 
Willard  and  the  Frenchman,  190  pounds,  six  feet,  one 
and  one-half  inches. 

Suppose,  some  thousands  of  years  hence,  the  skele- 
ton of  Mr.  Jess  Willard  should  be  unearthed  at  a  spot 
where  it  had  lodged  after  a  seismic  disturbance,  a 
drift,  or  some  other  experience,  separating  it  from  all 
other  skeletons  except  those  of  animals.  Would  the 
discoverers  say:  "Aha!  This  spot  used  to  be  occupied 
by  a  race  of  giants  who  weighed  250  pounds  and  were 
six  feet,  six  inches  tall."  Or  should  the  skeleton  dis- 
covered be  that  of  Mr,  Jimmy  Wilde,  would  they  say : 
"Aha!  There  used  to  live  here  a  race  about  as  tall 
as  the  Neanderthal  half-ape,  half-man  race,  five  feet, 
two  and  one-half  inches  in  height." 

If  the  very  long  Willard  leg  bones  alone  were  found, 


16  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

measurements  "strictly  scientific"  could  be  interpret- 
ed to  mean  that  the  "restored"  trunk  and  head  rep- 
resented a  creature  nearly  eight  feet  in  height,  and 
the  protecting  phrase  "in  all  probability"  would  serve 
all  the  purposes  of  "approximate  accuracy."  Mr. 
Jess  Willard  would  still  remain  an  exceptional  man, 
not  "an  average  specimen,"  six  feet,  six  inches  in 
height  and  not  eight  feet  tall. 

Materializing  a  Phantom 

The  measurements  upon  which  Professor  Knight 
relies  for  his  illustrations  are  doubtless  those  of  the 
La  Chapelle-aux-Saints  bones,  but  as  far  as  a  gener- 
alization concerning  height  is  concerned  neither  these 
nor  any  other  isolated  bones  or  bone  fragments  have 
any  more  significance  than  the  extremes  represented 
by  the  bones  of  Mr.  Jimmy  Wilde  or  the  bones  of  Mr. 
Jess  Willard.  It  would  be  quite  impossible  to  deter- 
mine whether  any  set  of  bones  had  belonged  to  pugilist 
or  philosopher — a  true  Huxleyan  dictum.  Haeckel  de- 
scribes numerous  human  races  now  living  as  having  a 
height  of  four  feet,  six  inches  for  males  and  as  low  as 
three  feet,  six  inches  for  females.  The  significance  is 
degeneration,  not  evolution.  See  "Wonders  of  Life," 
1904. 

As  for  the  Piltdown  skull,  it  is  clearly  a  human  skull 
beneath  which  the  evolutionists  have  modelled  the  face 
of  a  chimpanzee  and  so,  according  to  Professor  Keith, 
produced  "an  impossible  animal  that  could  neither 
breathe  nor  eat." 

Among  the  scientists  who  have  laughed  at  this  ex 
parte  fabrication,  this  new  enormity,  must  be  included 
Professor  H.  Klaatsch,  recognized  and  quoted  in  other 
matters  as  an  authority  by  Professor  Osborn;  Pro- 
fessor Hertwig,  Professor  Macnamara,  quoted  by  Sir 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  17 

Bertram  Windle;  the  great  palaeontologist  Branco, 
director  of  the  Geological  and  Palaeontological  Insti- 
tute of  Berlin  University,  etc. 

Always  this  Piltdown  skull,  with  its  Piltdown  jaw, 
is  associated  with  the  so-called  "  Heidelberg' '  jaw,  the 
"massive"  development  of  which  was  parallelled  by 
Professor  Erich  Wasmann  in  a  modern  Eskimo  skull, 
which  shall  have  further  notice  later.  This  similarity 
was  noticed  also  by  Kramberger,  not  so  much  as  men- 
tioned by  Professor  Osborn,  whose  writings  are  adver- 
tised as  "the  last  word"  and  accepted  as  such  by  un- 
thinking thousands. 

So,  too,  as  pointed  out  by  Joseph  Husslein,  the  Pilt- 
down skull  is  not  inferior  to  the  skulls  of  men  living 
now.  Consequently,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Professor 
Osborn  does  not  include  in  his  bibliography  the  name 
of  one  of  Europe's  most  distinguished  pathologists 
and  anthropologists,  Professor  Rudolf  Virchow,  who 
at  the  Twentieth  Congress  of  the  German  Anthropo- 
logical Association  declared:  "No  one  doubted  at  the 
first  general  meeting  of  the  German  Anthropological 
Association  that  the  truth  would  be  forthcoming  dem- 
onstrating that  man  was  descended  from  a  monkey, 
and  that  his  descent  from  a  monkey,  or  at  least  from 
some  kind  of  animal,  would  soon  be  established. 

'  *  This  was  a  challenge  which  was  made  and  success- 
fully defended  in  the  first  battle.  Everybody  knew  all 
about  it  and  was  interested  in  it.  Some  spoke  for  it ; 
some  against  it.  It  was  considered  the  great  question 
of  anthropology. 

"Let  me  remind  you,  however,  at  this  point,  that 
natural  science,  so  long  as  it  remains  science,  works 
only  with  really  existing  objects. 

"A  hypothesis  may  be  discussed,  but  its  significance 
can  be  established  only  by  producing  actual  proofs  in 
its  favor,  either  by  experiments  or  direct  observation. 


18  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

"This,"  cautioned  Virchow,  "Darwinism  has  not 
succeeded  in  doing.  In  vain  have  its  adherents  sought 
for  connecting  links  which  should  connect  man  with 
the  monkey.  Not  a  single  one  has  been  found.  This 
so-called  proanthropus  which  is  supposed  to  repre- 
sent this  connecting  link  has  not  appeared.  No  true 
scientist  claims  to  have  seen  him." 

Virchow  never  changed  and,  with  the  equally  famous 
palaeontologist  Branco,  never  quoted  by  the  untiring 
followers  of  subterfuge  and  invention  posing  as  scien- 
tific data,  they  continue  to  declare  "the  man-ape  has 
no  existence  and  the  missing  link  remains  a  phantom." 


CHAPTER  II 
The  Trinil,  Ape-Man 

The  Trinil  ape-man — Compounding  two  in  one — Hiding  the  missing  links 
— Floods  and  sand-storms. 

The  Trinil  ape-man  of  Java  hasT)een  reconstructed 
by  the  Belgian  artist  Mascre,  under  the  direction  of 
Professor  A.  Rutot  of  Brussels,  and  independently  by 
Professor  J.  H.  McGregor  for  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of 
Man,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History. 

The  two  reconstructions  differ  so  from  each  other 
as  to  look  less  alike  than  Fatty  Arbuckle  and  Charlie 
Chaplin. 

Had  Professor  Osborn  used  the  Rutot  reconstruc- 
tion as  a  substitute  for  the  McGregor  reconstruction 
in  his  progressive  series  of  three  busts  pictured  on  the 
front  cover  and  again  on  page  3  of  the  American  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History 's  guide  leaflet,  series  No.  52, 
the  whole  effect  of  progression  would  have  been  spoiled. 
Moreover  Professor  Osborn  would  have  had  a  less 
dramatic  subject  to  deal  with. 

The  McGregor  bust  represents  a  short-haired,  hide- 
ous creature  suggesting  a  slightly  improved  gorilla, 
whereas  the  Rutot  bust  is  that  of  a  long-haired,  heav- 
ily-bearded, somewhat  pious  creature,  looking  heaven- 
ward with  no  expression  of  squat  ferocity  but  rather 
with  a  soft  sweetness,  emphasized  by  two  armsful  of 
gorgeous  vegetation,  palm  leaves,  fern  and  other  sym- 
bols of  docility  and  peace.    You  will  find  him,  page  73, 

19 


20  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Professor  Osborn's  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age," 
1921. 

He  would  make  a  poor  beginning  for  the  Osborn 
drama  in  which  he  would  appear  like  Topsy  of  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin  trying  to  play  the  part  of  Othello  in 
Shakespeare's  tragedy  of  that  name. 

It  so  happens  that  the  McGregor  reconstruction,  be- 
ing pure  fancy  with  no  science  in  it,  serves  the  Osborn 
purpose  as  stepping-stone  No.  1.  Thus  we  have  the 
Trinil  Ape-Man,  an  improvement  on  a  gorilla,  leading 
to  stepping-stone  No.  2,  which,  in  the  person  of  the 
Neanderthal  man,  is  an  improvement  on  the  improve- 
ment of  the  improved  gorilla. 

Hence  we  get  a  sort  of  evil  genius  similar  to  the 
fellow  who  dominated  Robert  Louis  Stevenson's  dual 
character  of  Doctor  Jekyl  and  Mr.  Hyde,  so  that  step- 
ping-stone No.  3,  being  a  progressive  evolutionary  im- 
provement on  all  the  other  improvements  might  be  la- 
belled "Cro-Magnon  Man." 

In  this  fashion  we  come  to  the  hokus-pokus,  without 
foundation  in  fact  or  justification  in  fancy,  upon  which 
Professor  Osborn  creates  thousands  of  pre-human 
men  who,  he  says,  lived  500,000  years  ago.  Osborn 
speaks  of  the  discovery  of  the  Trinil  "Race"  in  Cen- 
tral Java — not  an  ape-man,  but  a  "race"  of  ape-men. 
With  a  triumphant  flourish  and  a  gesture  of  finality 
in  the  best  grand  style,  the  Osborn  guide  leaflet  dem- 
onstrates "the  progressive  increase  of  relative  intelli- 
gence appreciated  by  the  most  casual  observer." 

It  also  demonstrates  "especially  by  definite  ana- 
tomical characters  the  increased  prominence  of  the 
chin,  the  reduction  of  the  eyebrow  ridges,  the  reduction 
of  the  prominence  of  the  lower  face  as  a  whole,  the  in- 
creased size  of  skull  and  of  brain  capacity."  Osborn 
does  not  know  that  the  supra-orbital  (eyebrow)  ridges 
are  less  prominent  now,  in  1921,  among  the  negroes  of 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph    by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Profile  view  of  chimpanzee  showing  supra-orbital  arches, 
ear,  upper  lip,  mouth,  absence  of  nose  and  chin.  Com- 
pare ear  and  brow  with  ear  and  brow  of  orang.  Also 
compare  with  "restored'  head  of  Trim]  Ape-Man  in 
group    of    three   busts   opposite   page    39. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  21 

Africa  and  the  Chinamen  of  Asia  than  among  the 
modern  European  whites.  Professor  Arthur  Keith 
("The  Human  Body,"  1910,  pp.  177)  says,  "In  the 
typical  African  negro  the  forehead  as  a  rule  is  high 
and  the  supra-orbital  ridges  are  distinctly  less  prom- 
inent than  in  the  European.  The  supra-orbital  ridges 
of  the  Chinaman  are  less  developed  than  in  the  Euro- 
pean." 

If  Osborn  failed  to  suggest  the  very  reverse  of  these 
facts  he  would  be  unable  to  make  his  theory  of  evolu- 
tion sufficiently  plausible  for  the  child  for  whom  it  is 
intended,  hence  he  describes  as  ' '  science ' '  the  arbitrary 
and  picturesque  creations  of  clay  modelers  who  have 
had  less  to  work  with  than  the  manufacturers  of  ouija 
boards. 

On  one  point  in  connection  with  the  Trinil  Ape-Man 
and  the  stage-setting  in  which  he  appears,  Professor 
Osborn,  with  astonishing  frankness,  says  "Five  cases 
in  the  center  of  the  Hall  are  devoted  to  the  story  of 
man  (sic)  and  that  it  can  be  compressed  into  so  small 
a  space  is  an  indication  of  the  scarcity  of  his  remains, 
for  here  are  displayed  reproductions  of  all  of  the  not- 
able specimens  that  have  been  discovered. ' '  All  these 
notable  specimens,  upon  which  volumes  have  been 
written,  can  be  housed  in  a  peach-basket.  Most  of  the 
broken  bone  fragments  are  admittedly  the  bones  of 
apes.  Some  of  them,  upon  which  great  hopes  were 
raised  and  which  have  been  described  as  the  long  sought 
missing  links  between  ape  and  man,  are  now  classified 
as  the  bones  of  a  chimpanzee. 

The  "restored  head"  of  the  Trinil  Ape-Man,  de- 
signed to  show  a  half -human,  half-ape  "  resemblance, ' 
rests  solely  upon  a  piece  of  bone  weighing  a  few  ounces. 
That  Professor  Osborn  should  attempt  to  use  this  piece 
of  bone  as  he  has  used  it  is  inexplicable,  for  he  says  of 
it  himself:     "The  Trinil  Ape-Man  is  the  first  of  the 


22  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

conundrums  in  human  history.' '  Then  he  immediately 
asks  this  question:  "Is  the  Trinil  race  (sic)  pre-hu- 
man or  not?"  He  does  not  answer,  but  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  his  leaflet,  the  whole  substance  of  his  book 
and  the  whole  substance  of  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of 
Man  is :  Man  has  indeed  descended  from  the  ape  and 
these  reconstructions  constitute  conclusive  and  incon- 
trovertible proof  of  the  fact. 

Out  of  all  this  "proof,"  dignified  as  the  palseonto- 
logical  evidence  of  a  man's  descent,  Professor  Osborn 
draws  so  many  shreds  of  secret  doubt  that  he  must  pro- 
tect himself  against  the  difficulties  in  his  path  by  ad- 
mitting ("Guide  Leaflet,"  series  No.  52,  p.  4)  "Man 
is  not  descended  from  any  known  form  of  ape,  either 
living  or  fossil."  This  confession  is  not  original  with 
Osborn  nor  is  it  new  with  any  of  the  monkey  evolution- 
ists. You  will  find  it  back  in  1871  on  Darwin's  lips: 
"But  we  must  not  fall  into  the  error  of  supposing  that 
the  early  progenitors  of  man  were  identical  with  or 
even  closely  resembled  any  existing  ape  or  monkey." 
(See  "Descent  of  Man,"  1871,  vol.  I,  p.  158.) 

Notwithstanding  the  elaborate  spreading  out  of  his 
weird  repository  of  bone  fragments,  he  is  so  stumped 
by  the  poverty  of  his  "scientific  evidence"  as  to  be 
provoked  to  an  admission  wholly  out  of  harmony  with 
the  positiveness  and  the  finality  of  the  conclusions 
characteristic  of  the  ape-manologists  of  his  day. 

He  says,  speaking  of  the  Trinil  Ape-man:  "It  is 
not  impossible  that  this  ape-man  is  related  to  the 
Neanderthal  man." 

Again  he  says,  page  77,  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age" 
— and  you  are  asked  to  carefully  note  for  comparison 
later  the  excerpt — "We  may  form  our  own  opinion, 
however,  from  a  fuller  understanding  of  the  speci- 
mens themselves,  always  keeping  in  mind  that  it  is  a 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  23 

question  whether  the  femur  and  the  skull  belong  to 
the  same  individual  or  even  to  the  same  race." 


Compounding  Two  in  One 

Remembering  this,  let  us  have  the  facts.  The  only 
remains  of  the  now  famous  Trinil  Ape-Man  consist  of 
a  small  section  of  a  brain  pan,  two  molar  teeth  and  a 
piece  of  thigh  bone  unearthed  1891  near  Trinil,  Java, 
by  the  intimate  friend  of  Ernst  Haeckel,  Eugene  Du- 
bois, a  Dutch  military  surgeon,  who  described  his  dis- 
coveries four  years  later,  September,  1895,  at  the 
Third  International  Congress  of  Zoologists  at  Leyden. 
The  two  shattered  bones  were  found  sixteen  yards 
apart  but  within  the  same  year.  One  of  the  teeth  was 
found  near  the  fragment  of  skull  bone  and  the  other 
near  the  thigh  bone. 

Dubois  reconstructed  these  scanty  remains,  called 
them  Pithecanthropus  erectus  (meaning  ape-man 
standing  upright),  and  declared  they  were  neither  ape 
nor  man  and  therefore  could  only  be  a  connecting  link 
between  ape  and  man. 

The  famous  Rudolf  Virchow,  president  of  the  Con- 
gress, prudently  observed  that  inasmuch  as  the  frag* 
ments  of  bone  picked  up  during  the  course  of  a  year 
had  been  discovered  far  apart  there  was  no  evidence 
at  all  that  they  had  ever  formed  part  of  the  same  crea- 
ture, and  it  was  still  less  possible  to  characterize  such 
a  compound  of  two  creatures  either  as  man  or  as  ape, 
since  the  thigh  bone  was  a  man's  thigh  bone,  whereas 
the  fragment  of  brain-pan  belonged  to  a  chimpanzee  or 
a  gibbon. 

John  Lubbock  (Lord  Avebury)  who  had  the  good 
fortune  to  see  the  remains  before  they  were  hidden 
from  scientists,  says  of  them  ("Prehistoric  Times/ '  p. 
401) :    "It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  they  are  not 


24  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

more  complete,  but  they  certainly  belonged  either  to  a 
very  large  gibbon  or  a  very  small  man. ' '  The  gibbon 
is  the  smallest  of  the  so-called  great  apes.  It  is  no, 
longer  included  in  the  same  family  (Simiidae)  with  the 
chimpanzee,  gorilla  and  orang.  All  the  gibbons  are 
now  confined  to  the  single  genus  Hylobates.  They 
rarely  exceed  three  feet  in  height.  A  larger  gibbon 
would  be  classified  as  a  " giant.' '  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  Lubbock  speaks  of  the  Trinil  skull-cap  as  belong- 
ing to  "a  very  large  gibbon"  or  "a  very  small  man" 
— a  dwarf. 

No  hint  of  the  truth  is  disclosed  when  the  Trinil 
Ape-Man  is  popularly  described.  As  if  to  emphasize 
its  lack  of  significance  Richard  Lydekker,  writing  for 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  eleventh  edition,  disposes 
of  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  in  uncolored  terms.  He  says, 
(vol.  xxii.,  p.  336)  :  "The  forehead  is  extremely  low, 
with  beetling  brow-ridges  and  the  whole  calvarium 
presents  a  curiously  gibbon-like  aspect." 

As  so  many  points  of  superficial  resemblance  be- 
tween man  and  the  primates  are  emphasized  by  the 
evolutionist  he  might  have  added  the  fact,  suppressed 
in  all  the  text  books,  that  man  has  twelve  pairs  of  ribs, 
whereas  the  gibbon  and  the  chimpanzee  have  thirteen 
pairs;  that  man  has  twelve  dorsal  vertebrae  whereas 
the  chimpanzee  and  gorilla  have  thirteen  and  the  gib- 
bon fourteen ;  that  the  liver  of  the  gorilla,  which  crea- 
ture is  supposed  to  be  most  man-like  of  the  primates, 
is  not  like  man's  liver  at  all,  but  like  the  liver  of  the 
baboon,  which  is  a  dog-like  ape  with  a  tail.  In  the 
gorilla's  liver  both  the  right  and  left  lobes  are  cleft 
by  a  fissure.  In  the  langur  group  the  liver  is  much  di- 
vided and  placed  obliquely  to  accommodate  the  saccu- 
lated stomach. 

The  Piltdown  exposure  should  have  prevented  the 
Trinil  resurrection  for  the  reason  that  the  original 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  25 

Trinil  exhibit  was  discredited  many  years  before  the 
Piltdown  "discovery."  But  the  missing  link  chasers 
are  stubbornly  persistent.  What  they  can't  catch 
ready-made  they  can  create  on  the  spot.  Hence  Vir- 
chow's  word  of  caution  to  the  all-too-eager  ape-man- 
ologists,  urging  them  in  their  elaboration  of  missing 
links  to  wait  until  they  can  get  hold  of  a  real  skeleton, 
a  complete  skeleton,  to  take  the  place  of  their  few  frag- 
ments of  broken  bones.  Even  Osborn  himself  admits 
that  the  Trinil  thigh  bone  is  human  and  that  the  Trinil 
skull-cap  is  simian.  Of  the  two  teeth  he  says  ("Men 
of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  81) :  "They  do  not  resemble 
those  of  man  closely  enough  to  positively  confirm  the 
pre-human  theory."  He  might  have  said,  speaking 
of  resemblances,  "In  the  hand  of  man  the  same  bones 
are  to  be  seen  as  in  the  tortoise.  The  elements  in  the 
foot  of  a  lizard  are  the  same  even  in  the  highly  modi- 
fied human  foot."  He  would  have  found  the  words 
quoted  on  page  371,  "Human  Embryology  and  Mor- 
phology" by  Arthur  Keith,  M.D.,  F.R.C.S.,  1910,  Royal 
College  of  Surgeons,  University  of  Aberdeen,  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  London  Hospital  Medical  College, 

From  all  this  are  we  to  have  a  "Tortoise  Theory" 
or  a  "Lizard  Theory"  or  are  we  to  go  right  on,  shat- 
tering "resemblances"  only  when  they  fail  to  come  to 
our  aid  in  support  of  something  "pre-human"? 

Of  course  there  isn't  the  slightest  evidence  of  any 
kind  to  indicate  that  the  two  Trinil  teeth  were  ever  as- 
sociated in  life  with  the  Trinil  skull-cap  or  the  Trinil 
thigh  bone.  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  simply 
proves  that  a  human  thigh  bone  could  have  belonged  to 
no  creature  with  a  simian  skull-cap.  Why,  then,  does 
Professor  Osborn  insist  in  assembling  them  as  a  miss- 
ing link ;  as  a  stepping-stone  in  a  progressive  series ; 


26  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

as  scientific  palaeontological  proof  of  man's  ape- 
origin? 

Osborn  says  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  77) : 
"This  fully  justifies  the  opinion  of  the  anatomist 
Schwalbe  that  the  skull  of  Pithecanthropus  (Trinil 
Ape-Man)  is  nearer  to  that  of  Neanderthal  man  than 
to  that  of  even  the  highest  of  the  anthropoid  apes." 
In  this  manner,  difficult  to  follow  when  a  scientist  is 
speaking,  he  re-emphasizes  the  alleged  connection  be- 
tween the  Trinil  Ape-Man  and  the  modern  man,  using 
the  Neanderthal  man  as  the  link. 

Speculations  of  this  kind  appear  with  surprising 
frequency.  In  the  New  York  Sunday  American  of 
August  7,  1921,  with  a  syndicated  circulation  of  per- 
haps 3,000,000  copies,  reaching  perhaps  15,000,000  in- 
dividuals, an  entire  page  with  faked  illustrations  was 
devoted  to  an  article  by  Dr.  W.  H.  Ballou,  dealing  with 
men  possessing  tails,  covered  with  monkey-like  hair 
and  equipped  with  ape-legs,  arms,  hands  and  feet.  Dr. 
Ballou  reverts  to  the  Trinil  Ape-Man.  Not  only  does 
he  assert  that  "this  Trinil  man  is  the  earliest  speci- 
men of  a  man-like  creature  that  has  ever  been  found," 
but  he  also  declares:  "It  stood  erect,  had  a  well- 
shaped  human  head  and  was  tailed.  Science  deduced 
from  the  skeleton  (sic)  our  evolution  into  the  smooth- 
skinned,  tailless  creatures  that  we  are  today.  .  .  . 
From  the  most  ancient  legends  (sic)  it  would  seem  that 
the  tailed  people  (sic)  are  true  descendants  of  the 
Trinil  Ape-Man  who  was  not  confined  to  Java,  Borneo 
and  New  Guinea." 

Now  we  see  that  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  had  a  tail !  Dr. 
Ballou  speaks  of  his  skeleton  as  a  fact.  The  readers 
of  the  New  York  American  can  hardly  be  presumed  to 
know  that  there  never  was  any  such  tail  or  any  such 
skeleton. 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Gibbon.  One  of  the  four  anthropoid  apes  noted  for  absence  of 
tail.  Curious  as  it  mar  seem,  the  ape-manologists  are  forced 
to  admit  that  this  creature  is  anatomically  Dearer  to  man  than 
any  of    the  other  anthropoids.      Study   it. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  27 

Hiding  the  Missing  Links 

Dr.  Ballou's  appeal  to  the  Trinil  ape-tail  as  proof 
that  modern  man  once  had  a  similar  tail  is  like  the 
appeal  of  Professor  Osborn  to  Professor  Schwalbe. 
This  very  Schwalbe,  pressed  into  service  by  Osborn, 
said  ("Vorgeschi elite  des  Menschen,"  1904,  p.  29)  : 
"The  Pithecanthropus  (Trinil  Ape-Man)  has  no  place 
in  the  genealogical  line  of  man's  direct  ancestors." 
What,  then,  is  Osborn 's  purpose,  by  inference  and  il- 
lustration, in  keeping  him  in  that  direct  line?  Osborn 
himself  admits  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  79) : 
"There  are,  however,  reasons  for  excluding  Pithecan- 
thropus (Trinil  Ape-Man)  from  the  direct  ancestral 
line  of  the  higher  races  of  man."  What  higher  races? 
What  skeleton?  What  tail?  What  are  they  talking 
about?  They  might  as  well  say,  "There  are,  however, 
reasons  for  excluding  the  duck-bill,  the  salamander  and 
the  flying  fish  from  the  direct  ancestral  line  of  the 
higher  races  of  man."  Of  course  there  are  such  rea- 
sons— for  exclusion — many  of  them,  but  no  reasons  at 
all  for  ever  including  them  in  the  first  place. 

What's  all  the  shooting  for?  What  have  they  been 
trying  to  do  with  all  this  noise  when  they  themselves 
admit  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  anything? 

Professor  Osborn 's  own  witnesses,  Klaatsch, 
Schwalbe,  and  Alsberg  declare  that  the  Trinil  Ape- 
Man  not  only  does  not  belong  to  the  pedigree  of  man 
but  that  it  does  belong  to  the  pedigree  not  of  any  ex- 
tinct ape  or  fossil  ape,  but  to  the  pedigree  of  the  mod- 
ern apes,  wherefore  "he  ceases  to  be  a  witness  in  sup- 
port of  the  theory  of  man's  descent  from  beast.' 

Professor  Osborn  admits  that  no  living  ape  belongs 
to  the  pedigree  of  man.  He  also  admits  that  no  fossil 
ape  belongs  to  the  pedigree  of  man.  His  witnesses 
Schwalbe  and  Klaatsch  admit  that  the  Trinil  monster 


28  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

does  not  belong  to  the  pedigree  of  man.  They  do  admit 
that  the  Trinil  monster  does  belong  to  the  pedigree  of 
the  modern  apes,  but  as  modern  man  and  modern  apes 
are  admitted  to  have  no  relation  to  each  other,  Profes- 
sor Osborn  can't  bring  in  the  Trinil  monster  without 
bringing  in  the  modern  apes,  and  precisely  that  he  con- 
fesses he  cannot  do. 

With  these  facts  known  to  him,  what  does  Professor 
Osborn  mean  when  he  says,  p.  5,  guide  leaflet  series 
No.  52  (referring  to  the  contents  of  case  1  in  the  Hall 
of  the  Age  of  Man,  showing  the  Trinil  race  of  Java 
and  other  primates,  living  or  extinct,  which  aid  in  re- 
constructing the  ancestral  tree  of  the  human  race), 
"  Between  these  two  groups  have  been  placed  a  restor- 
ation of  the  skull  and  of  the  head  of  the  Trinil  Ape- 
Man  of  Java  (Pithecanthropus  erectus)  and  a  cast  of 
the  actually  discovered  brain  case  and  two  of  the 
teeth V9  Is  this  not  speaking  of  something  that  is 
something,  something  that  stands  between  two  groups  1 

Again  we  are  justified  in  asking,  "What  does  Pro- 
fessor Osborn  mean?" 

In  the  group  in  the  right  half  of  the  case  he  has  ar- 
ranged the  skulls  of  certain  anthropoid  apes,  gibbon, 
orang,  chimpanzee,  adult  gorilla,  young  gorilla  and 
the  Trinil  ape  skull.  On  the  left  he  has  arranged  re- 
constructed models  of  the  exploded  Piltdown,  the  mu- 
tilated Neanderthal,  the  shattered  Talgai,  the  recon- 
structed Cro-Magnon,  and  a  recent  human  skull.  In 
a  niche,  specially  constructed  for  the  purpose,  he 
mounts  the  bust  of  the  Trinil  Ape-Man,  in  the  exact 
center  of  these  two  groups. 

He  will  never  explain  this  as  science  for  the  reason 
that  there  is  no  science  in  it. 

He  does  not  say  he  has  ever  seen  the  Trinil  Ape- 
Man.  He  does  not  say  he  knows  where  the  remains  of 
the  Trinil  Ape-Man  are  to  be  found  for  inspection. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  29 

He  does  know  they  are  not  to  be  found  for  inspection 
at  all  and  that,  although  they  have  been  discovered  for 
thirty  years,  scientists  themselves  are  not  permitted 
to  examine  them  or  even  to  see  them.  Why  all  the  se- 
crecy? Professor  Osborn  knows  all  about  this  secrecy. 
Why  does  he  not  refer  to  it? 

Professor  Osborn  knows  that  Dr.  Ales  Hrdlicka  him- 
self, whom  he  quotes  in  other  matters,  was  not  per- 
mitted, even  as  curator  of  the  United  States  National 
Museum,  to  examine  or  even  to  see  the  Trinil  ape  re- 
mains. 

Hrdlicka  says,  Smithsonian  Publication  2300,  p.  10: 
"It  would  surely  seem  proper  and  desirable  that  speci- 
mens of  such  value  to  science  should  be  freely  acces- 
sible to  well  qualified  investigators  and  that  accurate 
casts  be  made  available  to  scientific  institutions,  par- 
ticularly after  twenty  (now  thirty)  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  discovery  of  the  original. 

"Regrettably,  however,  all  that  has  thus  far  been  fur- 
nished to  the  scientific  world  is  a  cast  of  the  skull-cap, 
the  commercial  replicas  of  which  yield  measurements 
different  from  those  reported  taken  of  the  original, 
and  several  not  thoroughly  satisfactory  illustrations; 
no  reproductions  can  be  had  of  the  femur  and  the 
teeth"  (about  which  Professor  Osborn  speaks  in  his 
book  as  if  he  had  seen,  examined  and  measured  them), 
"and  not  only  the  study  but  even  a  view  of  the  orig- 
inals are  denied  to  scientific  men." 

It  is  rather  disturbing  to  learn  that  the  study  of 
Schwalbe,  upon  whom  Osborn  relies  so  heavily,  was 
made  on  a  cast,  the  measurements  of  which  do  not 
agree  with  those  given  out  by  Dubois  on  the  original. 
Dr.  Hrdlicka  treats  these  facts  with  great  delicacy, 
but  one  who  has  no  fear  of  offending  his  scientific  fel- 
lows can  speak  out  in  meeting  and  ask  the  questions : 
What  are  they  afraid  of?    What  have  they  to  con- 


<  i 


30  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ceal?  Have  they  been  faking  in  a  manner  that  would 
be  automatically  disclosed  if  scientific  men  were  to  be 
permitted  to  see  for  themselves  that  which,  strange 
and  inexplicable  as  it  may  seem,  they  are  not  permitted 
to  see  for  themselves? 

' 'Why  the  queer  drawings  instead  of  photographs? 
Why  the  significant  silence  of  Osborn,  who  passes  dis- 
creetly over  these  questions  which  surely  must  be  of 
profound  importance  to  him  and  the  subject  upon 
which  he  poses  as  an  authority !" 

Floods  and  Sand-Storms 

Professor  Osborn  is  not  so  silent  about  other  things. 
He  has  no  reluctance  in  venturing  opinions  that  are 
important  to  nobody  but  himself.  He  has  opinions  in 
explanation  of  the  failure  of  science  to  discover  any- 
thing like  a  skeleton  of  the  missing  link.  His  expla- 
nation on  that  important  point  is  that  "  although  the 
ancestors  of  man  lived  partly  among  trees  and  forests, 
they  lived  chiefly  on  the  ground,  where  they  were  en- 
tombed by  floods  and  sand-storms." 

This  explanation  of  the  inability  of  scientists  to  lo- 
cate a  single  pre-human  link  connecting  the  ape  with 
man  is  a  singularly  forced  subterfuge.  The  same 
scientists  have  found  no  difficulty  in  discovering  the 
fossil  remains  of  hundreds  of  the  ancestors  of  the  horse 
and  other  animals,  including  monkeys  and  great  apes 
of  every  description. 

If  the  floods  and  sand-storms  entombed  all  the  fossil 
remains  of  ape-men  and  sub-men,  why  did  the  same 
floods  and  sand-storms  spare  the  fossil  remains  of  the 
countless  scores  of  smaller  animals  now  on  exhibition 
in  all  the  museums  of  the  world? 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  31 

Brain  Pans 

What  about  the  school  teachers  who  inspect  the  ex- 
hibits in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man,  and  who  are  not 
informed  that  the  Weddas,  a  race  of  dwarfs  from  Cey- 
lon, have  a  skull  capacity  of  960  c.c,  wThich  is  very  much 
smaller  but  ought  to  be  very  much  larger  than  the  skull 
capacity  of  a  creature  described  as  ' '  500,000  years  old. ' ' 

Very  much  is  made  of  these  brain-pan  capacities  as 
expressed  in  cubic  centimeters.  Professor  Osbora 
himself  employs  them  as  eloquent  proof  of  the  evolu- 
tionary development  of  man.  But  in  assigning  to  his 
Neanderthal  craniums  a  brain  capacity  of  1408  c.c. 
he  makes  no  mention  of  the  fact  that  the  average  cra- 
nial capacity  of  the  males  of  Central  Europe  today  is 
but  1503  c.c,  and  that  of  females  but  1300  c.c.  This, 
of  course,  means  that  the  human  female  of  modern 
Central  Europe  is  less  intelligent  than  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History's  restoration  of  the  near- 
est thing  to  the  half-human,  half-ape  creature  which 
stands  back  there  thousands  and  thousands  of  years 
ago  along  uman's  magnificent  ascent  from  the  brute." 
Professor  Osborn  employs  the  c.c.  figures  because  he 
accepts  the  doctrine  of  the  materialistic  school  which 
declares  that  the  capacity  of  the  skull  affords  a  direct 
indication  of  the  mental  capabilities  of  its  owner. 

It  is  very  sad,  indeed,  for  the  purposes  of  the  evolu- 
tionist, to  have  to  realize  that  few  human  beings  today 
have  a  cranial  capacity  greater  than  that  of  the  sub- 
human creatures  whose  restorations  inhabit  the  con- 
fusion now  known  as  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man. 

The  receptive  school  teachers  who  visit  this  famous 
Hall  will  not  be  flattered  by  the  realization  of  the  fact 
that  their  brain  capacity  corresponds  almost  exactly 
with  the  brain  capacity  of  the  Neanderthal  restora- 
tions.    Either   Professor  Osborn  has   all  but   made 


32  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

monkeys  of  the  school  teachers,  or  as  far  as  skulls  are 
concerned  the  Neanderthals  were  just  as  human  as 
any  other  human  being  is  supposed  to  be  or  can  be. 
That  is  precisely  what  they  were! 

It  was  once  thought  that  Bismarck's  skull,  which 
was  really  enormous,  having  a  brain  capacity  of  1965 
c.c.,  was  about  the  biggest  thing  of  its  kind  in  the 
world,  but  Professor  Rudolf  Virchow  discovered  a 
skull  with  a  brain  capacity  of  2010  c.c.  It  belonged 
not  to  a  poet  or  statesman  of  Great  Britain,  Germany 
or  France;  not  to  a  creature  of  any  civilized  nation. 
It  belonged  to  a  savage  of  New  Britain! 

One  of  the  stumbling  blocks  created  by  Professor 
Osborn  himself,  but  nowhere  referred  to  by  himself, 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  these  old  palaeolithic  skulls, 
described  as  Neanderthal,  although  said  to  be  50,000 
years  old,  had  an  average  capacity  of  1626-1635  c.c. 
Some  of  them  measure  up  to  1700  c.c.  These  figures 
knock  the  bottom  out  of  the  evolutionary  procession 
which,  for  the  sake  of  plausibility,  must  ever  move 
from  a  low  figure  to  a  higher  figure,  and  certainly 
where  brains  are  to  be  considered  must  never  move 
backward  like  Hamlet's  crab. 

Leaving  animal  psychology  and  philosophy  out  of 
the  question,  it  is  certain  that  on  the  history  of  the 
human  race  science  has  absolutely  nothing  to  reveal 
with  regard  to  the  alleged  facts  which  Professor  Os- 
born by  his  exhibitions  and  his  written  words  would 
have  the  school  children  of  New  York  and  their  teach- 
ers believe  have  been  scientifically  demonstrated. 


CHAPTEE  III 

The  Neanderthal  Man 

The  Neanderthal  man — Blacks  and  whites — Another  correction — Manu- 
facturing "progressive"  evidence — Not  a  solitary  fossil — Suppress- 
ing contradictions — All  true  men — Fate  of  a  scientific  freak — 
"Historical  facts"  and  falsehoods. 

All  this  brings  us  to  the  Neanderthal  man,  who  is 
Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn's  master  centerpiece 
in  three  "restorations"  exhibited  in  the  Hall  of  the 
Age  of  Man,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 
and  described,  May,  1921,  by  Professor  Osborn,  in  his 
guide  leaflet  series  No.  52,  "For  the  People,  For  Edu- 
cation, For  Science,' '  in  a  half-tone  photographic  re- 
production designed  to  be  overwhelming,  not  as  a  sci- 
entific fact,  but  as  an  innuendo  so  dramatically  posed 
as  to  create  the  impression  on  the  impressionable  that 
here,  indeed,  are  the  last  words  of  truth  concerning 
the  ape-origin  of  man. 

The  most  famous  of  the  skeletal  remains  described 
as  "missing  links' '  are  the  specimens  which  have  all 
but  resurrected  a  whole  race  of  missing  links  known 
as  the  Neanderthals. 

The  piece  of  bone  now  known  as  the  famous  Neander- 
thal skull  was  found,  August,  1856,  by  two  laborers 
who  were  digging  in  a  small  cave  at  the  entrance  of 
the  Neanderthal  gorge,  Westphalia,  Germany.  An 
Elberfeld  physician,  Dr.  Fuhlrott,  became  interested  in 
it  and  other  fragments  of  bone  found  in  the  same  cave. 
Thus  he  collected  a  human  thigh  bone  well  preserved, 

33 


34  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

several  human  arm  bones  not  so  well  preserved,  some 
fragments  of  human  elbow  bones  (forearm),  a  piece 
of  a  right  human  radius  (a  forearm  bone),  a  fragment 
of  a  human  left  pelvic  bone,  a  fragment  of  a  human 
right  shoulder  blade,  a  small  piece  of  a  human  right 
collar  bone,  and  five  broken  pieces  of  human  rib. 

The  following  year,  February  4,  1857,  Professor  D. 
Schaaffliausen  of  Bonn  made  a  preliminary  report 
upon  these  bones  at  the  meeting  of  the  Lower  Rhine 
Medical  and  Natural  History  Society  of  Bonn.  June 
2,  1857,  Dr.  Fuhlrott  made  another  report  covering 
the  same  bone  fragments  at  the  general  meeting  of 
the  Natural  History  Society  of  Prussian  Rhineland 
and  Westphalia.  Dr.  Fuhlrott  suggested  that  the 
Neanderthal  bones  might  be  regarded  as  "fossil." 
Dr.  Ales  Hrdlicka,  referring  to  Dr.  Fuhlrott 's  opinion, 
says :  "By  ' fossil'  he  possibly  meant  not  merely  min- 
eralized but  also  belonging  to  a  form  of  humanity  no 
more  existing. " 

At  once  all  sorts  of  legends  began  to  develop  upon 
the  Neanderthal  bones.  They  were  talked  of  as  be- 
longing to  a  period  preceding  the  Celts  and  Germans. 
It  was  said  they  proceeded  from  one  of  the  wild  races 
of  Northwestern  Europe,  spoken  of  by  Latin  writers. 
It  was  said  there  was  no  doubt  that  they  were  trace- 
able to  a  period  at  which  the  latest  animals  of  the  Di- 
luvian  still  existed. 

But  even  Professor  SchaafYhausen  admitted  sixty 
years  ago,  "No  proof  of  this  assumption,  nor  conse- 
quently of  their  so  termed  fossil  condition,  was  af- 
forded by  the  circumstances  under  which  the  bones 
were  discovered.'' 

For  many  years  a  tremendous  controversy  was  car- 
ried on  concerning  the  significance  of  the  piece  of 
Neanderthal  skull  prior  to  the  finding  of  the  Spy,  Gib- 
raltar and  similar  skeletal  remains.    Professor  Rudolf 


re 

're 


re 

55 


re 

c 
< 


—  —  ■■—  ~"     OD  —  ' 

S  "3  °  a  £  o  "3 

„"    C          —  v  — 

m  fl     o    G    "-  =  r 


o 

~ 
c 

+J 

-t— 

c 

- 

re 

c 

E 

— 

-*— 

/ 

— 
- 

_i     .  re 

c 

re: 
re 

c 

i— : 

— 

-_ 
z. 

re 

c. 

„H 

-*- 

pC 

/  -  ~ 

c/ 

re 

s 

o 
•/. 

a; 

-  -  - 

c 

_ 

-t— 

► 

n       *  ■   r 

- 

re 
Eh 

c 

c 

-  ■          -—    m 

z.  ■*-  r— 
t>       "tr  '~. 

—  —    c    • ' 

z.    c         - 

g     -  - 

c 

r 

>^ 

|"   B   flK 

«4- 

■4— 

°  o  c8  a 

I      E- 


b.  ^   -        Z  •=   -    - 

C  BO  4^    c  "t?  •«  w 

-  .•  bf,-  -  *  = 

»  B  o    ch  §  •: 

P-»  O    —    CJ 

—  :_     1. 

<v        &  «4-i         -    d  ~ 

C    •-       ~   c   =     .  OS 


c  £   c 


ef_i    C 
a.   g   £ 


c 
- 


-  —  s- 


-J. 

Z 

-— 

X 

z 


-     — 


re 


s r-  - 


z 

--  ~-  :-  : 

-_    -     -    — 


re    c  tr  -X  t:    x    - 

J-   re  ^  ^i  -    -   ?  - 

c  ^  -  •-       B  S 

a    s-  ^r  r    -  -r  m 

c   c  ^_  ' —  >-     __ 

>-    c  •  —    —    ~ 

—     —  —    --     BQ  ' — 

~     •  ""  —    •/  - 

-  '- 


-  J:  -i  - 
re  ^\_    C 


- 


"S  2  ® 

—  —  <  ~ 


.-  re 

=  T  -z  ^ 
re         h 


re    n    ^  _= 


—  w    -■    X    Ji    »    r    : 

-  _=    "^  —         tJ  +3   . 

DQ 

-re 
re- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  35 

Virchow  and  many  others  looked  upon  the  bone  as  a 
diseased  specimen.  Professor  J.  Barnard  Davis  de- 
clared its  sutures  indicated  a  premature  synostosis. 
Dr.  C.  Carter  Blake  insisted,  1864,  and  again  1866, 
that  such  part  of  the  skull  as  could  be  examined  indi- 
cated that  it  had  proceeded  from  an  idiot. 

From  time  to  time  other  skulls  of  similar  conforma- 
tion were  discovered  in  different  parts  of  Europe. 
Comparisons  soon  led  to  the  definite  claim  that  the 
cranium  and  bones  represented  no  pathological  or  ac- 
cidental monstrosity  but  a  peculiar  and  thereto  un- 
known type  of  ancient  humanity  who  was  a  very  close 
relative  to  modern  man,  but  "  equally  close  to  some 
pre-existing  ape  now  extinct.' '  In  other  words  he  was 
equally  close  to  something  of  which  nothing  existed ! 

Thus  came  into  existence  a  whole  race  of  creatures 
now  referred  to  as  Homo  neanderthalensis  with  an 
age  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years!  or  of  but 
thirty  thousand  years!  as  you  choose. 

Blacks  and  Whites 

Notwithstanding  the  finding  of  so-called  other  Nean- 
derthal remains,  Dr.  Ales  Hrdlicka,  curator  United 
States  National  Museum,  who  has  examined  the  re- 
mains now  preserved  in  the  Provincial  Museum  at 
Bonn,  says :  "The  supra-orbital  fore-structure  or  arch 
formed  through  this  protrusion  is  heavier  than  in  any 
other  known  example  of  the  Homo  neanderthalensis. 
The  vault  shows  very  good  dimensions  in  length  and 
breadth  but  is  strikingly  low,  and  the  bones  are  con- 
siderably thicker  than  in  the  white  man  of  today.' 

Just  why  the  thickness  of  the  bones  should  be  com- 
pared with  the  white  man  rather  than  with  the  African 
Negro  or  Australian  Bushman  is  not  clear,  though 
the  student  is  forced  to  admit  that  it  is  quite  as  clear 


36  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

as  a  comparison  with  something  of  which  nothing 
exists ! 

All  lovers  of  the  theatre  who  admired  the  intellec- 
tual achievements  of  Sir  Henry  Irving  marvelled  over 
his  very  low  forehead  which  sloped  markedly  back- 
ward, though  not  so  much  so  as  the  forehead  of  Mar- 
quis La  Fayette  of  revolutionary  fame.  The  writer 
possesses  an  autographed  photograph  given  to  him  in 
1900  by  Sir  Henry  himself,  and  is  not  surprised  that 
the  materialistic  evolutionists  completely  ignore  its 
profile  in  their  comparative  studies.  The  Henry  Irv- 
ing skull  in  some  respects  would  confound  them.  One 
could  distort  its  description  in  support  of  any  weird 
theory  under  discussion. 

Describing  the  original  Neanderthal  skull-cap,  Dr. 
Hrdlicka  says,  p.  30,  "The  Most  Ancient  Skeletal  Re- 
mains of  Man," — "The  forehead  is  very  low  and  also 
slopes  markedly  backward,  nevertheless  it  presents  a 
moderately  defined  convexity.  The  sagittal  region  is 
oval  from  side  to  side,  much  like  that  in  man  of  today. ' ' 
The  description  could  be  forced  to  fit  Sir  Henry's 
brain  pan  with  respect  to  the  outlines  of  the  sagittal 
median  curve.  It  would  fit  La  Fayette's  brain  pan 
nicely.    And  Rudyard  Kipling's! 

The  internal  capacity  of  this  skull  was  fixed  very 
low,  for  obvious  reasons,  by  Professor  SchaafThausen. 
He  wanted  to  get  it,  like  the  Piltdown  skull  of  a  later 
date,  as  close  to  the  brute  as  possible,  so  he  declared 
that  it  had  a  c.c.  capacity  of  1033.  The  highest  form 
of  ape  stops  at  600  c.c. 

Another  Correction 

Even  Professor  Huxley  was  forced  to  correct  this 
estimate  by  giving  it  a  c.c.  capacity  of  1230.  Profes- 
sor Schwalbe  confirmed  the  Huxley  measurements  by 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  37 

giving  it  a  c.c.  capacity  of  1234,  which  is  very  close  to 
the  cranial  capacity  of  the  modern  school  teacher's 
skull. 

Having  made  as  much  as  they  could  of  the  "primi- 
tive," inferior,  "sub-man"  significance  of  the  Neander- 
thal skull,  they  turned  their  attention  to  the  remainder 
of  the  bones  with  the  conclusion  that  the  various  parts 
represented  human  beings  far  advanced  above  any 
anthropoid,  but  still  on  a  lower  scale  of  evolution  than 
the  skull  and  bones  of  any  white  man  of  today. 

That  they  could  make  the  same  statement  concern- 
ing the  bones  of  many  living  races  as  compared  with 
the  white  man  of  today,  but  do  not,  must  ever  remain 
one  of  the  unexplained  complexities  of  the  materialis- 
tic evolutionist's  subjective  state  of  mind. 

Even  Hrdlicka  (Smithsonian  Institute),  who  is 
most  careful,  most  conservative  and  most  sincere,  and 
whose  scholarship  is  recognized  by  all  modern  scien- 
tists (extolled  by  Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn 
himself),  speaking  of  the  Neanderthal  bones,  uses  a 
single  word — "already" — which  discloses  the  unyield- 
ing and  unassailable  stability  of  the  preconceptions 
and  pre-opinions  which  dominate  and  bias  what  would 
otherwise  be  a  detached  and  uncolored  attitude  toward 
the  truth. 

He  says,  Smithsonian  Institution  Publication  2300: 
"A  careful  examination  and  comparison  of  the  Nean- 
derthal skull  and  bones  can  leave  only  one  impression 
on  the  anatomist  or  anthropologist  of  today,  which  is 
that  while  individually  and  jointly  the  various  parts 
represent  a  human  being  ALREADY  far  advanced 
above  any  anthropoid,  they  are  still  in  many  respects 
decidedly  more  primitive  in  form  than  the  skull  and 
bones  of  any  man  of  today." 

That  word  "already"  conclusively  shows  that  Dr. 
Hrdlicka  himself  is  working  on  the  theory  so  unscrup- 


38  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ulously  popularized  by  Ernst  Haeckel,  whose  forgeries 
of  plates  and  other  deliberate  mutilations  of  truth  have 
exposed  him  in  the  act  of  formulating  a  theory  which 
once  formulated  must  insist  that  henceforth  all  opin- 
ions, all  convictions,  all  facts  must  be  made  to  conform 
with  it  or  be  rejected  entirely. 

It  was  Haeckel,  as  we  shall  see,  who  started  the  cur- 
rents of  falsehood  flowing  into  the  stream  of  scientific 
truth,  and  unhappily  we  find  Hrdlicka  subconsciously 
influenced  by  Haeckelian  contamination. 

When  Hrdlicka  employs  the  word  " already' '  he 
means  that  man  did  begin  in  the  brute  and  had  "  al- 
ready' '  far  advanced  toward  his  present  form,  and  yet 
his  own  words  of  caution  on  this  very  subject  prove 
that  he  is  conscious  of  the  unscientific  tendency  which 
has  thus  crept  into  science. 

He  says:  "The  various  failures  and  uncertainties 
connected  with  some  of  the  finds  in  the  past  have  im- 
pressed all  investigators  in  the  field  with  the  necessity 
of  the  most  careful  and  properly  controlled  procedure. 
There  are  many  specimens  for  which  greater  or  less 
antiquity  has  been  at  some  time  or  is  still  being  claimed. 
In  many  of  these  instances  the  student  finds  that  the 
evidence  adduced  and  the  testimony  of  the  skeletal 
parts  themselves  speak  rather  against  any  great  age 
or  leave  the  subject  in  serious  doubt.  It  would  seem 
best  for  the  progress  of  science  to  eliminate  all  such 
specimens  from  consideration  until  ample  evidence  be 
found,  etc." 

Manufacturing  "Progressive"  Evidence 

Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn,  in  his  exhibit 
now  presenting  unsupported  opinions  as  established 
fact  in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man,  describes  the  Nean- 
derthal race  as  "the  missing  link."    He  labels  Case 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  39 

III  in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  i '  the  immediate  pred- 
ecessor of  modern  man,  the  Neanderthal  race,"  not- 
withstanding the  ever-growing  body  of  evidence  that 
the  Neanderthals  were  a  race  of  blacks. 

In  addition  to  a  cast  of  the  original  Neanderthal 
skull-cap  Professor  Osborn  includes  in  his  Neanderthal 
circle  the  cast  of  a  skull  discovered  at  Spy,  Belgium, 
casts  of  fragments  of  jaws  from  Malarnaud,  France; 
fragments  of  jaw  from  Krapina,  Croetia;  cast  of  a 
skull  found  at  Le  Moustier,  France;  cast  of  a  skull 
from  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints,  France ;  reconstructions 
of  a  female  skull  found  at  Gibraltar,  1848,  including 
half  of  the  soft  parts  of  the  head  and  a  lower  jaw  re- 
stored from  studies  of  ten  other  Neanderthal  jaws. 

This  Neanderthal  collection  surrounds  a  central  bust 
modelled  by  Professor  J.  H.  McGregor. 

This  bust  has  been  so  elaborated  as  to  take  its  place 
as  "Link  No.  2"  in  the  three  links  "forming  a  pro- 
gressive series."  The  openly  avowed  intention,  to 
use  Professor  Osborn 's  own  words,  "is  evident  not 
only  by  the  general  form  and  the  appearance  of  rela- 
tive intelligence  appreciated  by  the  most  casual  observ- 
er, but  especially  by  definite  anatomical  characters  such 
as  increased  prominence  of  the  chin,  reduction  of  the 
eyebrow  ridges,  reduction  of  the  prominence  of  the 
lower  face  as  a  whole,  increased  size  of  skull  and  of 
brain  capacity.' ' 

"Link  No.  1"  in  this  progressive  series  is  labelled 
the  Trinil  Ape-Man,  an  imaginary  creature  to  which 
the  professor  assigns  a  brain  capacity  of  858-900  c.c. 
He  calls  it  an  ape-man  to  distinguish  it  from  pure  ape 
with  a  brain  capacity  of  600  c.c.  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  Neanderthal  man  with  a  brain  capacity  of  1408  c.c. 
on  the  other. 

"Link  No.  3"  in  this  extraordinary  series  is  a  res- 
toration of  the  Cro-Magnon  man  with  a  brain  capacity 


40  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

of  1550-1880  o.c.  How  expressive  these  progressive 
groups  (600  c.c),  (858-900  c.c),  (1408  c.c),  (1550- 
1880  c.c). 

Obviously  the  series  is  progressive.  Obviously  an 
increase  in  relative  intelligence  is  part  of  the  progress. 
But  not  so  obvious  to  the  uncritical  is  the  fact  that  the 
whole  show  has  the  same  scientific  standing  as  that 
possessed  by  poor  Mr.  Piltdown  whose  wreckage  has 
been  flung  about  the  scientific  world,  despite  the  la- 
bored effort  of  Professor  Arthur  Keith  to  offset  the 
damage  occasioned  to  that  creature's  reputation  when 
he,  Keith,  exposed  the  first  reconstruction.  Keith  is 
quite  as  ardent  as  Osborn  in  his  devotion  to  the  ape- 
man  theory,  and  though  he  offers  apology  for  the  tedi- 
ousness  of  his  attempt  he  nevertheless  makes  a  heroic 
endeavor  to  furnish  a  new  face  for  the  Piltdown  out- 
cast by  giving  to  it  many  pages  in  his  ' '  The  Antiquity 
of  Man,"  1915.  For  the  student  interested  in  strained 
effects  the  book  is  worth  reading.  One  would  not  think 
it  could  have  been  written  by  the  author  of  "  Human 
Embryology  and  Morphology." 

Not  a  Solitaky  Fossil 

One  of  the  strong  pillars  supporting  Professor  Os- 
born 's  opinions  is  found  in  the  person  of  Professor 
H.  Klaatsch,  who,  like  the  discredited  Ernst  Haeckel, 
assumes  the  existence  of  a  hypothetical  common  an- 
cestor of  men  and  apes. 

As  late  as  1899,  at  the  Anthropological  Congress  at 
Lindau,  in  speaking  of  Klaatsch 's  opinion,  Professor 
Johannes  Ranke,  who  for  obvious  reasons  is  not  quoted 
by  Professor  Osborn,  said  (p.  463,  "Modern  Biology 
and  the  Theory  of  Evolution,"  by  Erich  Wasmann)  : 
"Whilst  a  charming  picture  of  the  past  and  possibly 
of  the  future  is  being  shown  us,  and  whilst  a  fanciful 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  41 

design  is  being  carried  out  in  all  directions,  we  are  as 
a  rule  in  quest  of  facts,  not  of  theories.  The  facts, 
however,  upon  which  Herr  Klaatsch  claims  to  base  his 
ingenious  theory,  do  not  at  present  exist,  and  I  must 
protest  against  his  assuming  that  they  have  been 
really  furnished  by  zoology  and  palaeontology  any 
more  than  by  anatomy.  All  else  is  still  a  matter  of 
hypothesis  and  if  anyone  attempts  to  use  it  in  order 
to  produce  a  finished  picture  the  result  is  a  work  mere- 
ly of  the  imagination." 

To  this  Erich  Wasmann  himself  adds:  "We  have 
the  pedigree  of  the  present  apes,  a  pedigree  very  rich 
in  species  and  coming  down  from  the  hypothetical  an- 
cestral form  of  the  oldest  Tertiary  period  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  ZittePs  Grun&zuge  der  Palaontologie  gives  a 
list  of  no  fewer  than  thirty  genera  of  fossil  Pro-Simiae 
and  eighteen  genera  of  fossil  apes,  the  remains  of 
which  are  buried  in  the  various  strata  from  the  Lower 
Eocene  to  the  close  of  the  Alluvial  epoch,  but  not  one 
connecting  link  has  been  found  between  their  hypo- 
thetical ancestral  forms  and  man  at  the  present  time. 
The  whole  hypothetical  pedigree  of  man  is  not  sup- 
ported by  a  single  fossil  genus  or  a  single  fossil 
species/ 9 

How  extraordinary!  If  man  were  really  descended 
from  a  pre-historic  ancestor  common  to  him  and  to  the 
apes  of  the  present  day,  there  must  surely  be  some  fos- 
sil trace  left  of  his  existence  and  not  merely  traces  of 
apes.  Why  does  palaeontology  furnish  so  many  and 
such  wonderful  specimens  of  fossil  apes  and  not  a  sin- 
gle specimen  of  a  hypothetical  ancestor  of  man  if  they 
really  lived  side  by  side,  as  is  the  claim? 

In  1899  these  stumbling  blocks  were  making  more 
difficult  the  progress  of  the  theory  of  man's  ape-origin. 
Hence  the  Herculean  effort  inspired  some  twelve  years 
later  by  the  perfectly  gorgeous  discovery  of  poor  Mr. 


42  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Piltdown.  It  was  hoped  that  Mr.  Piltdown  would 
bridge  the  abysmal  gap  in  the  sadly  ruptured  hypo- 
thetical pedigree. 

We  have  seen  how  they  attached  the  jaw  of  a  chim- 
panzee to  a  human  skull;  how  they  compressed  their 
measurements  of  that  skull  to  make  its  c.c.  capacity 
conform  with  the  figure  they  thought  they  ought  to 
have  to  bring  it  into  the  sub-man  or  part-brute  domain ; 
how  they  misplaced  an  upper  canine  tooth  by  putting 
it  into  the  lower  jaw  where  it  didn't  belong,  in  order 
the  more  to  justify  their  reconstruction  of  an  apish 
face. 

We  can  now  understand  all  the  fuss  inspired  by  Mr. 
Piltdown,  but  we  cannot  understand  why  the  report 
of  Mr.  Piltdown 's  ignominious  demise  has  not  been 
presented  with  becoming  scientific  candor  to  the  thou- 
sands of  school  children  who,  accompanied  by  their 
teachers,  make  daily  visits  to  the  American  Museum 
of  Natural  History,  where  they  fail  to  find  any  frag- 
ment of  Sir  Ray  Lankester's  discouraging  communi- 
cation to  the  all  too  eager  H.  G.  Wells  who  wished  to 
"prove"  in  his  "The  Outline  of  History' '  that  the 
Piltdown  jaw  and  cranium  really  did  belong  to  the 
same  creature.  Unable  to  come  to  Wells'  assistance 
Lankester  wrote:  "1  think  we  are  stumped  and  baf- 
fled! The  most  prudent  way  is  to  keep  the  jaw  and 
the  cranium  apart  in  all  argument  about  them." 

Suppressing  Contradictions 

Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn's  1921  contribu- 
tion from  the  pen  of  the  president  of  the  American  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History  is  boldly  advertised  as  "The 
most  important  and  complete  (sic)  work  on  human  evo- 
lution since  'Darwin's  Descent  of  Man.'  It  is  the  first 
full  (sic)  and  authoritative  (sic)  presentation  of  what 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  43 

has  been  actually  discovered  (sic)  up  to  the  present 
time  in  regard  to  human  pre-history.  All  the  known 
pre-human  and  human  stages  of  development  for  the 
last  five  hundred  thousand  years  (sic)  are  described 
as  fully  (sic)  and  fairly  (sic)  as  the  material  allows." 
Fully!  Complete!  Authoritative!  Fairly!  And  this 
is  "science." 

Doubtless  all  of  the  school  children  and  many  of  their 
teachers  examining  the  graphic  "restorations"  of 
Professor  Osborn's  exhibit  fully  believe  these  astound- 
ing claims,  but  whether  they  would  believe  them  if 
the  naked  truth  were  presented  at  all  or  presented  with 
half  the  graphic  eloquence  of  the  stubbornly  persist- 
ent opinions  characteristic  of  a  desperate  determina- 
tion to  present  but  one  side,  and  that  the  broken  side 
of  a  flimsy  argument  in  support  of  a  crumbling  theory, 
is  another  matter. 

Would  it  not  be  a  prudent  and  a  decent  thing  to  in- 
form the  fresh  and  enthusiastic  student  of  anthropol- 
ogy that  there  are  now  twelve  complete  opinions  re- 
garding the  original  Neanderthal  skull?  The  original 
Neanderthal  man  has  been  described  variously  as  an 
idiot,  a  Mongolian  Cossack,  an  early  German,  an  early 
Dutchman,  an  early  Frieslander,  a  relative  of  the  Aus- 
tralian Blacks,  a  palaeolithic  man,  a  primitive  ape- 
man,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

Would  it  not  be  a  candid  thing  to  show  that  the  out- 
lines of  the  sagittal,  median  curve,  drawn  with  Lis- 
sauer's  diograph  by  Macnamara,  are  almost  identical 
when  the  Neanderthal  skull  is  compared  with  the  skull 
of  the  modern  Australian  Black? 

It  is  most  unfortunate  that  science  possesses  no 
means  of  judging  the  geological  age  of  the  Neanderthal 
skull  as  pointed  out  by  Professor  RaufT,  who,  like  so 
many  others,  is  not  included  in  Professor  Osborn's 
bibliography. 


44  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  truth  is  that  when  Dr.  Fuhlrott  reached  the 
quarry,  the  workmen  had  already  thrown  the  loam 
containing  the  bones  out  of  the  cave  and  had  partially 
destroyed  the  wall  of  rock.  It  was  for  this  reason  that 
the  great  Professor  Virchow  declared,  as  quoted  by 
Professor  Ranke  in  "Der  Mensch,"  vol.  II,  p.  485: 
"Whether  the  bones  were  really  in  Alluvial  loam,  as 
is  generally  assumed,  or  not,  no  one  saw.  The  whole 
importance  of  the  Neanderthal  skull  consists  in  the 
honor,  ascribed  to  it  from  the  very  beginning,  of  hav- 
ing rested  in  Alluvial  loam,  which  was  formed  at  the 
time  of  the  early  mammals." 

The  poor  fellow  may  have  lived  after  the  loam  was 
deposited  in  the  cave  and  his  bones  may  have  become 
embedded  in  it  centuries  later.  If  this  were  the  case 
there  would  be  no  need  to  discuss  him  further,  for  all 
speculation  as  to  his  importance  to  the  theory  of  man's 
brute  origin  would  simply  fall  to  the  ground.  On  this 
point  Professor  Virchow  is  very  clear.  He  says :  "We 
may  certainly  regard  it  as  decided  that  the  brain-cast 
bears  no  resemblance  to  that  of  an  ape,  and  even  if  the 
cranium  is  admitted  to  be  a  typical  race-cranium,  which 
I  consider  quite  unjustifiable,  it  does  not  by  any  means 
follow  that  we  may  deduce  from  this  that  it  approxi- 
mates to  that  of  an  ape."  An  ape,  mind  you,  that  does 
not  now  exist  and  of  which  no  single  trace  has  ever 
been  found. 

Even  Professor  Schaaffhausen,  whose  name  is  in- 
cluded in  Professor  Osborn's  bibliography,  declared 
in  his  "Der  Neandertaler  Fund,"  p.  49,  as  early  as 
1888:  "In  making  this  discovery  we  have  not  found 
the  missing  link  between  man  and  brute."  Why,  then, 
does  Professor  Osborn  persist  in  describing  it  as  the 
missing  link? 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  45 

All  True  Men 

As  pointed  out  by  Erich  Wasmann,  "Modern  Biol- 
ogy/ '  pp.  470-471,  1910:  "Recent  investigations  on 
the  subject  of  the  Neanderthal  man  and  his  Alluvial 
contemporaries  all  tend  to  confirm  this  statement." 

In  1901  Professor  Schwalbe,  whose  eminence  is  rec- 
ognized by  Professor  Osborn,  spoke  of  the  Neander- 
thal man  as  a  distinct  genus.  But  only  two  years  later, 
September  23,  1903,  at  the  Seventy-fifth  meeting  of 
German  Naturalists  and  Physicians  at  Cassel,  he 
abandoned  this  opinion  and  attempted  to  show  that 
the  Neanderthal  men  ought  to  be  considered  not  as  a 
distinct  genus  but-as  a  distinct  species  connecting  the 
Miocene  apes  with  man  of  the  present  time. 

Professor  Schwalbe  gave  to  the  Neanderthal  man 
the  description  Homo  Primogenus,  which  means  prim- 
itive man.  Professor  Macnamara,  an  enthusiastic  ad- 
vocate of  Schwalbe 's  method  of  examining  skulls,  dem- 
onstrated, "Archiv  fur  Anthropologic, "  xxviii,  1903, 
pp.  349-360,  that  skulls  resembling  the  Neanderthal 
skull  in  its  various  characteristics  occur  at  the  present 
day  in  Australia  and  Tasmania. 

In  fact  they  resemble  each  other  more  closely  than 
either  of  them  resembles  the  modern  Lapp  skull,  yet, 
as  pointed  out  by  Professor  Erich  Wasmann,  there  is 
no  living  scientist  who  doubts  that  the  Lapps  and  Aus- 
tralians must  both  be  included  in  the  same  systematic 
species  known  as  Homo  sapiens,  or  true  man.  Kill 
one  of  them  if  you  would  determine  whether  or  not  a 
jury  would  convict  you  of  murdering  a  man ! 

In  comparing  the  Australian  and  Neanderthal  skulls 
Macnamara  says:  "The  average  cranial  capacity  of 
these  selected  thirty-six  skulls  of  Australian  and  Tas- 
manian  Blacks  is  even  less  than  that  of  the  Neander- 
thal group,"  upon  which  embarrassing  fact   (not  an 


46  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

opinion)  modern  science  is  compelled  to  conclude  that 
the  Neanderthal  skulls  do  not  represent  a  distinct 
species  of  man  and  cannot  be  looked  upon,  therefore, 
as  missing  links,  but  must  be  classified  as  within  the 
limits  of  variation  of  the  species  Homo  sapiens.' ' 

Fate  of  a  Scientific  Fkeak 

The  famous  Professor  Gorjanovic-Kramberger,  four 
of  whose  works  published  1901,  1903,  1906  and  1909, 
are  referred  to  by  Professor  Osborn,  proves  conclu- 
sively that  modern  science  cannot  and  must  not  regard 
the  Neanderthals  and  modern  man  as  two  distinct  spe- 
cies, but  merely  two  races  of  one  and  the  same  spe- 
cies. He  says,  "Biolog.  Zentralblatt, "  p.  810:  "It  is 
perfectly  plain  that  the  human  remains  hitherto  dis- 
covered in  the  Neanderthal,  at  Spy,  La  Naulette, 
Schipka,  Ochas,  and  Krapina  all  belong  to  one  and  the 
same  species.  This  is  proved  most  clearly  by  the  nu- 
merous remains  found  at  Krapina,  which  present  many 
of  the  characteristic  features  of  modern  man.  It  is 
proved  also  by  many  peculiarities  that  recur  occasion- 
ally at  the  present  day.  There  are  now  lower  jaws  still 
larger  than  the  largest  found  at  Krapina.  We  still 
meet  with  broad,  square  dental  arches,  badly  developed 
chins  and  among  the  Australian  Blacks  genuine  supra- 
orbital ridges. ' ' 

Oh,  how  much  has  been  made  of  these  supra-orbital 
ridges  which  give  the  beetling  brows  and  the  ferocious 
appearance  to  the  fanciful  reconstructions  of  the  miss- 
ing links  connecting  the  ape  with  modern  man! 

Professor  Kramberger  goes  farther.  He  says:  "I 
have  in  my  possession  a  modern  lower  jaw  with  a 
smooth,  thick  basis  such  as  we  find  in  the  jaws  from 
Spy  and  Krapina.  We  occasionally  see  modern  jaws 
with  too  many  enamel  columns  near  the  molars,  with 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 


sui'\  i\  :iiur 


Grandfather    Orang,    meditating    on    the    plight    to    which    the 

members    of    man's    ancestral    race    have    been    reduced    by    their    un- 
grateful human   brothers. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  47 

no  projection  at  the  chin.  In  fact  even  at  the  present 
day  we  can  discover  a  number  of  features  which  in  the 
older  Alluvial  epoch  were  the  general  characteristics 
of  mankind  and  now  occur  occasionally  by  way  of  ata 
vism,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  older  Alluvial  human 
remains  sometimes  present  modern  characteristics. 
On  this  point  Eric  Wasmann  says:  "If  a  zoologist 
discovers  a  fossil  form  of  wolf  (meaning  a  wolf  that 
no  longer  exists)  having  certain  constant  peculiarities 
distinguishing  it  from  our  modern  wolf,  he  describes 
it  as  a  separate  species. 

'  *  Should  he  subsequently  have  more  abundant  mate- 
rial for  comparison  at  his  disposal  and  find  then  that 
none  of  the  distinguishing  features  is  constant,  nor 
limited  to  qne  of  the  two  forms  under  observation; 
should  the  characteristics  of  the  fossil  wolf  recur  in 
some  modern  wolves,  and  those  of  the  modern  wolf  oc- 
cur occasionally  in  the  fossils,  then  the  zoologist  would 
alter  his  opinion  and  say:  'We  have  here  not  two  dis- 
tinct species  but  only  two  races  of  the  same  species.' 
Let  us  adopt  the  same  method  and  be  serious  about  the 
purely  zoological  classification  of  man  and  then  we 
shall  acknowledge  the  Neanderthal  man  to  be  only  a 
variety  of  modern  man." 

Professor  Kramberger  says  that  the  discovery  of 
the  Galley  Hill  man  in  England  is  quite  extraordinary 
for  the  reason  that  the  strata  in  which  the  skeleton  was 
found  were  described  as  "early  Alluvial,'  whilst  the 
skeleton  itself  is  like  the  late  Alluvial  remains  found 
at  Brunn,  for  which  reason,  if  the  Galley  Hill  man 
really  belonged  to  the  early  Alluvial  period,  we  must 
assume  that  there  were  in  Europe  at  the  same  time 
two  contemporaneous  races  of  true  men. 

It  will  be  noted  that  Professor  Osborn  discreetly  ig- 
nores the  now  famous  Galley  Hill  skeleton  discovered 
in  the  Thames  Valley.    Its  great  age,  as  age  is  esti- 


48  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

mated  by  the  ape-man  theorists,  without  regard  for 
the  preposterous  discrepancies  of  their  contentions, 
should  rank  it  in  importance  with  the  Trinil  freak  and 
the  Piltdown  hoax  to  which  he  gives  so  much  attention. 
What  can  be  the  motive  behind  Professor  Osborn's 
curious  silence!  Perhaps  a  reference  to  Professor  Ar- 
thur Keith's  "Ancient  Types  of  Man,"  1911,  will  af- 
ford an  answer.  Keith  says,  (p.  32) :  "The  first  im- 
pression on  examining  the  remains  of  this  earliest 
known  inhabitant  of  England  is  one  of  surprise,  almost 
of  disappointment;  in  all  his  features,  with  a  few  ex- 
ceptions, he  is  so  modem  in  build  that  we  might  meet 
him  on  the  streets  of  London  today  and  pass  him  by 
unnoted." 

This  is  disappointment  indeed,  for  Keith,  authori- 
tative anatomist  that  he  is,  and  so  regarded  by  Os- 
born,  believes  in  the  monkey  theory.  Thus  when  he 
provides  such  a  difficulty  as  the  passage  quoted  there 
seems  to  be  little  choice  for  Osborn,  who  must  not  men- 
tion the  fact  at  all.  He  must  ignore  it  completely  for 
the  reason  that  as  he  presents  his  case  the  Galley  Hill 
man,  if  permitted  to  testify,  would  throw  it  out  of  court. 
No  wonder!  Professor  Keith,  with  no  evidence  what- 
soever, demands  350,000  years  for  the  period  which 
has  elapsed  since  the  glacial  skeletons  were  buried. 
Keith  is  an  anthropologist  of  the  highest  standing  but 
does  not  profess  to  rank  as  a  geologist.  G.  F.  Wright 
is  an  eminent  geologist  who  makes  no  profession  of 
expertness  in  anatomy.  Wright  says  ("The  Origin 
and  Antiquity  of  Man,"  1912,  p.  195) :  "Large  areas 
in  Europe  and  North  America  which  are  now  princi- 
pal centers  of  civilization  were  buried  under  glacial 
ice  thousands  of  feet  thick,  while  the  civilization  of 
Babylonia  (5,000  to  6,000  years  ago)  was  in  its  heyday. 
The  glib  manner  in  which  many,  not  to  say  most,  pop- 
ular writers  speak  of  the  Glacial  Epoch  as  far  dis- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  49 

tant  in  geological  time,  is  due  to  ignorance  of  facts 
which  would  seem  to  be  so  clear  that  he  who  runs 
might  read." 

So  Professor  Osborn  is  confronted  by  two  obstacles. 
The  Galley  Hill  man.discourteously  refuses  to  furnish 
any  ape-like  characters  that  would  serve  the  Osborn 
demonstration.  The  Galley  Hill  man  as  an  index  of 
the  antiquity  of  the  great  group  of  skeletons  for  whom 
350,000  years  are  claimed  must  knock  off  344,000 
years.  That  wouldn't  do  at  all.  Hence  the  only  way 
to  treat  the  unruly  fellow  is  to  ignore  him  and  keep 
him  out  of  sight.  He  is  not  related  to  any  extinct  an- 
thropoid ape.  Professor  Kramberger  recognizes  no 
such  relationship  between  the  Neanderthals  and  apes 
of  any  kind. 

Professor  Osborn  himself  says,  p.  4,  American  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History  guide  leaflet  series  No.  52, 
May,  1921:  "Man  is  not  descended  from  any  known 
form  of  ape  either  living  or  fossil.' '  But  he  is  de- 
scended from  something  of  which  nothing  exists! 

Despite  this  admission  Professor  Osborn  gives  a 
most  extraordinary  prominence  to  the  fanciful  recon- 
struction of  his  Trinil  Ape-Man,  which  is  one  of  the 
most  weird  and  wholly  unscientific  monstrosities  ever 
included  in  any  so-called  scientific  exhibit  in  Europe 
or  America. 

In  an  unguarded  moment  Professor  Kramberger  ex- 
pressed the  belief,  "Biolog.  Zentralblatt, "  p.  812,  that 
the  Neanderthal  man  and  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  belonged 
to  the  same  period  and  as  early  as  the  Pliocene  epoch 
the  Trinil  Ape-Man  and  the  true  man  were  distinct. 
Of  course  this  is  merely  hypothesis  as  there  are  no 
human  remains  of  the  Tertiary  period  of  any  kind 
whatsoever.  But  assuming  it  to  be  true,  like  so  many 
other  assumptions  along  the  line  of  this  fanciful  pedi- 
gree of  man,  it  absolutely  precludes  the  possibility  that 


50  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

the  Trinil  Ape-Man  of  Java  could  have  been  an  ances- 
tor of  man,  for  the  very  excellent  reason  that  they  were 
contemporaries ! 

Like  the  Piltdown  man,  the  Neanderthal  man  fur- 
nishes science  with  no  evidence  at  all  in  support  of 
the  theory  of  man's  descent  from  beasts.  Professor 
Schwalbe' s  Neanderthal  man  began  by  being  the  rep- 
resentative of  a  genus  standing  between  an  ape  and 
man,  then  he  became  an  ape-like  species  of  man,  and 
now  finally  he  turns  out  to  be  only  a  race  of  true  man! 
Such  is  the  evidence  of  the  evolutionists  themselves. 

The  true  scientific  fate  of  this  creature  as  exhibited 
in  Professor  Osborn's  brilliant  progressive  series  is 
overshadowed  by  the  spirit  of  poetic  justice  which 
manifests  its  ever-fresh  confirmation  of  truth  in  the 
remarkable  words  of  Professor  Schwalbe  himself,  in 
the  introduction  to  his  work  on  the  Early  History  of 
Man. 

"Historical.  Facts' '  and  Falsehoods 

Professor  Schwalbe  there  says:  "Probably  in  no 
department  of  natural  science  is  the  attempt  to  draw 
general  conclusions  from  a  number  of  facts  more  liable 
to  be  influenced  by  the  subjective  disposition  of  the 
student  than  in  the  early  history  of  man.  On  this 
subject  it  often  happens  that  upon  a  few  facts  theories 
are  based  which  are  stated  with  so  much  conviction 
as  easily  to  lead  those,  who  have  no  special  knowledge 
of  the  subject,  to  regard  them  as  assured  scientific  cer- 
tainties." Why  did  Professor  Osborn,  who  has 
learned  so  many  other  things  from  Professor  Schwalbe, 
not  learn  THAT? 

It  was  poor  Ernst  Haeckel  who  gave  so  much  in- 
spiration to  the  exhibit  at  the  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History  in  New  York  City;  to  the  illustrated 
article   published  in   the  Popular  Science   Monthly, 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  51 

June,  1921,  by  Professor  Charles  Knight;  to  the  as- 
tounding gratuities  scattered  by  H.  G.  Wells  through 
his  "  Outline  of  History/ '  which  was  said,  July,  1921, 
to  have  had  a  circulation  of  200,000  sets;  to  the  many 
fetching  and  brilliantly  phrased  editorials  of  Arthur 
Brisbane  syndicated  through  a  circulation  of  5,000,000 
daily  and  Sunday  editions  of  the  Hearst  newspapers; 
to  the  soap-box  speeches  so  frequently  heard  at  the 
street  corners  of  Manhattan,  and  to  the  many  popular 
science  contributions  of  young  authors  who  glibly  and 
facetiously  hand  out  as  scientific  fact  a  stereotyped 
hodge-podge  of  sincere  repetitions  which,  with  all  the 
enthusiasm  of  youth,  they  truly  believe  to  be  "aids  to 
progress." 

It  is  indeed  no  trifling  matter  to  distort  truth  as 
Haeckel  and  so  many  other  supporters  of  his  theory 
of  man's  descent  have  done  in  popular  lectures  and 
works  when  they  speak  of  that  descent  of  man  from 
beasts  as  a  fact  of  history,  thus  misleading  an  unques- 
tioning and  uncritical  public. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Last  Link 

The  last  link — Man  appeared  suddenly — The  spy  man — The  Krapina 
man — The  man  of  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints — Brain  already  human — > 
The  La  Quina  lady — The  Heidelberg  man — Osborn  versus  Osborn. 

In  HaeckePs  "The  Last  Link,"  published  Lon- 
don, 1898,  p.  76,  he  uses  the  phrase  "an  historical  fact," 
yet  his  own  pedigree  of  the  primates  published  in  his 
"Last  Words  on  Evolution/ '  London,  1906,  exposes 
his  "facts"  for  what  they  are.  This  pedigree  is  the 
product  of  pure  imagination  consisting  of  a  mixture  of 
wholly  fictitious  creatures  with  really  existing  crea- 
tures, the  connection  between  them  being  as  fictitious 
as  the  fictions  themselves.  From  an  imaginary  remote 
ancestor  which  he  calls  the  Archiprimas,  Haeckel 
traces  the  hypothetical  forefathers  of  our  present 
lemuroids  and  apes  in  an  unbroken  line. 

From  a  no  less  imaginary  Archipithecus  he  traces 
the  descent  of  a  fictitious  primitive  gibbon  which  he 
calls  the  Prothylodates  atavus.  This  creature  was  the 
forefather  of  a  speechless  primitive  man  who  never 
existed,  but  which  Haeckel  calls  Pithecanthropus  alalus. 
He  did. not  dare  call  this  imaginary  thing  Pithecan- 
thropus erectus  for  the  very  good  reason  that  scientific 
research  had  shown  him  that  this  so-called  fossil  ape- 
man  could  not  serve  as  the  missing  link  and  he  had  to 
have  a  link  that  would  be  subject  to  no  such  refutation. 

52 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  53 

Building  his  ladder,  he  fixed  Pithecanthropus  alalus 
as  the  father  of  Homo  stupidus,  the  stupid  man,  from 
whom  finally  Homo  sapiens,  modern  man,  is  descended. 
And  all  this  he  calls  "an  historical  fact."  As  such  it 
is  accepted  by  men  of  education  who  assert  in  all  sin- 
cerity, ' '  None  but  a  fool  would  dare  criticize  the  theory 
of  man's  descent  from  an  ape  because  it  is  the  com- 
monly accepted  opinion  of  mankind. ' '  The  editor  of  a 
prominent  New  York  daily  used  these  words  in  a  con- 
versation with  the  writer  as  late  as  June,  1921. 

Yet  twenty  years  ago,  August  16,  1901,  in  his  closing 
address  at  the  Fifth  International  Congress  of  Zool- 
ogists held  in  Berlin,  Professor  W.  Branco  of  the 
Geological  and  Palaeontological  Institute  ofi  Berlin 
University  took  as  his  subject  "  Fossil  Man"  and  com- 
pletely refuted  HaeckePs  extravagant  "historical 
fact,"  "The  Last  Link." 

How  is  the  modern  follower  of  Haeckel  to  obtain 
opinions  other  than  those  handed  to  him  by  professors 
whose  conclusions  he  is  not  tempted  to  question? 
Where  thousands  are  smugly  familiar  with  the  "his- 
torical facts"  of  Haeckel,  few  indeed  are  those  who 
have  taken  the  pains  to  sift  for  themselves  the  over- 
whelming store  of  truth  which  puts  to  shame  the  "ac- 
cepted," "unquestioned,"  "historical  fact." 

It  is  the  habit  of  propagandists  to  believe  that  truth 
never  overtakes  falsehood,  and  as  far  as  popular  in- 
formation is  concerned  something  might  be  said  in 
favor  of  their  theory  as  one  learns  that  few  among 
the  thousands  who  have  accepted  Haeckel  with  uncrit- 
ical confidence  have  ever  given  heed  to  Branco  or  to 
any  of  the  other  distinguished  anatomists,  zoologists, 
palaeontologists,  anthropologists  and  biologists  who 
during  the  last  twenty  years  have  demonstrated  the 
soundness  of  his  (Branco  *s)  palaeontological  conten- 
tions, entirely  disregarding  his  zoological  views. 


54  GOD— OK  GORILLA 

Man  Appeared  Suddenly 

The  principal  facts  developed  by  Branco  can  be 
briefly  described :  It  is  possible  to  trace  the  ancestry 
of  most  of  our  present  mammals  among  the  fossils  of 
the  Tertiary  period.  Man  appears  suddenly  in  the 
Quaternary  period.  There  is  no  record  of  any  ances- 
tor of  man  in  the  Tertiary  period.  The  so-called  traces 
of  human  activity  which  some  theorists  have  tried  to 
associate  with  the  Tertiary  period  are  of  a  very  doubt- 
ful nature. 

The  very  first  evidence  of  man's  existence  on  this 
planet  and  all  the  other  evidence  thus  far  established 
proves  that  he  made  his  first  appearance  at  once  as  a 
complete  true  man.  Most  of  the  earliest  human  beings, 
the  Neanderthals  excepted,  possessed  a  cranium  of 
which  any  of  us  might  be  proud.  They  had  neither 
excessively  long  ape-like  arms  nor  excessively  long  ape- 
like canine  teeth,  but  were  genuine  men  from  head  to 
foot. 

In  confirmation  of  this  the  student  can  refer  to 
"Modern  Biology,"  Erich  Wasmann,  p.  478;  "Der 
Mensch,"  vol.  II,  pp.  482-483;  H.  Obermaier,  '^An- 
thropologic," xvi.,  1905,  pp.  385-410,  and  xvii.,  1906, 
pp.  55-80. 

Shocking  to  the  palaeontologists  who  say  they  are 
anti-dogmatists  but  whose  own  dogmatism  is  more  dog- 
matic than  one  would  expect  even  from  self-styled 
scientists  is  the  truly  scientific  conclusion  of  Profes- 
sor Branco:  ^Palaeontology  tells  us  nothing  on  the 
subject — it  knows  no  ancestors  of  man." 

The  Spy  Man 

Referring  to  the  Spy  skeletons  which  can  be  covered 
briefly,  it  may  be  said  that  they  were  discovered  June, 
1886,  in  the  terrace  fronting  a  cave  at  Spy,  in  the  prov- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  55 

ince  of  Namur,  Belgium,  by  Marcel  de  Puydt  and  Max- 
imin  Lohest.  These  skeletons,  now  described  by  all 
scientists  as  No.  1  and  No.  2,  are,  like  most  remains 
of  their  kind,  not  skeletons  at  all,  though  thus  de- 
scribed, but  parts  of  skeletons. 

The  skull  of  No.  1  is  almost  identical  with  the  fa- 
mous Neanderthal  skull.  Although  both  skulls  were 
found  together,  skull  No.  2  "has  a  considerably  higher 
and  more  convex  forehead,  the  whole  vault  is  higher 
as  ivell  as  more  spacious,  and  the  form  approaches  in 
many  respects  that  in  modem  man." 

The  above  is  the  official  description  as  recognized 
and  passed  on  by  the  Smithsonian  Report  for  1913. 
Professor  Hrdlicka  frankly  admits  that  the  brain  cav- 
ity of  skull  No.  2  is  like  that  of  modern  man.  Even  the 
lower  jaw  of  skull  No.  1  possesses  the  well-defined  chin 
prominence  characteristic  of  modern  man.  Both  speci- 
mens are  classified  as  Neanderthal  men  and  are  so  re- 
garded by  Professor  Osborn. 

What,  then,  are  we  to  say  of  the  "reconstruction' 
of  the  Neanderthal  man  by  Professor  Osborn 's  as- 
sistant, Charles  R.  Knight,  whose  work  for  the  Ameri- 
can Museum  of  Natural  History  is  one  of  its  most  con- 
spicuous features  1  Knight  says  he  was  ' '  a  fierce,  half- 
brutish  savage,  dwarfed  by  a  large  head  which  makes 
him  seem  smaller  than  he  really  is.  His  lowering  face 
accentuates  his  squat  ferocity.  How  low  his  forehead ! 
What  great  bony  ridges  beetle  his  deep-set  eyes! 
And  his  chin — where  is  it?  A  weakling,  you  argue,  if 
the  chin  is  any  index  of  the  strength  of  character.  But 
this  man  was  no  weakling.  Look  at  his  profile;  that 
deep  and  heavy  jaw  and  the  gorilla-like  character  that 
accompanies  it.  There  determination  is  stamped. 
How  strangely  the  whole  face  is  projected  in  front  of 
the  eyes,  and  with  it  the  heavy  nose  and  the  coarse, 
protruding  lips." 


56  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Professor  Knight  says  this  is  ' '  science. ' '  He  is  ad- 
vertised as  a  distinguished  artist  whose  restorations 
of  pre-Eistoric  animals  and  men  have  won  for  him 
national  reputation. 

Alas,  for  the  "long  forearms  suggestive  of  the  go- 
rilla." What  becomes  of  them  as  the  bones  of  the  Spy 
skeletons  are  examined  by  anatomists'?  "A  rather  un- 
expected condition,  found  since  in  other  skeletons  of 
the  Neanderthal  man"  says  Hrdlicka,  p.  38,  Smithson- 
ian Publication  2300,  "is  the  relative  SHORTNESS 
of  the  forearms."  Moreover  "the  skeleton  of  the  go« 
rilla  is  not  at  all  human  in  its  appearance.  The  massive 
brute-like  crests  on  the  skull,  the  massive  jaws  and 
face,  the  long  stout  arms,  the  short  lower  limbs,  with 
a  thumb-like  great  toe  (never  seen  in  any  human  foot, 
even  in  the  foetus)  seem  to  assure  us  that  even  this 
most  man-like  of  apes  is  a  long  way  off  from  man." 
The  modern  anatomist  who  makes  this  statement  is 
none  other  than  Professor  Arthur  Keith.  See  "The 
Human  Body,"  1910,  p.  41. 

The  Krapina  Man 

Another  important  find,  described  as  a  Neanderthal 
man,  consists  of  a  series  of  human  bones  recovered 
from  the  Krapina  cave  in  northern  Croatia,  by  Profes- 
sor K.  Gorjanovic-Kramberger,  between  1899  and 
1905,  following  some  minor  discoveries  in  1895  in  the 
same  cave  by  two  Croetian  teachers. 

The  bones  represent  the  shattered  remains  of  at  least 
fourteen  individuals  ranging  from  childhood  to  ripe 
adult  age.  In  fact  most  of  the  skulls  and  lower  jaws 
are  reduced  to  fragments  of  such  a  nature  that  Pro- 
fessor Kramberger  was  led  to  the  opinion  that  "they 
represented  the  leavings  of  cannibalistic  feasts." 

Although  classified  as  Neanderthal  men,  the  bones  of 


Skeletons  of  man  and  chimpanzee  compared.  The  bones  of  the 
chimpanzee  have  been  placed  in  an  artificial  upright  position. 
Examine   "resemblances"    closely. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  57 

the  upper  extremities,  which  are  still  capable  of  being 
studied  carefully,  are  described  as  "perceptibly  more 
modern  in  type  than  the  Neanderthal  and  Spy  bones/ ' 
which  themselves  are  so  modern  as  to  cause  a  strange 
and  significant  pause  in  the  worn-out  tendency  to  as- 
sociate them  with  apes  except  by  the  most  subtle  infer- 
ences. Even  the  teeth  of  the  Krapina  jaws,  particu- 
larly the  canines,  are  remarkably  like  those  with  which 
the  modern  dentist  is  familiar.  Pointing  out  certain 
peculiarities,  Hrdlicka,  who  has  personally  examined 
them,  says:  "They  are  on  the  whole  relatively  near 
those  of  present  man."  Thus  link  after  link  is  torn 
from  the  chain  forged  by  honest  dupes  from  the  for- 
geries of  tricksters. 

The  Man  of  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints 

Another  Neanderthal  skeleton  is  the  Fossil  Man  of 
La  Chapelle-aux-Saints,  a  small  village  south  of  the 
town  of  Brive  in  southern  France.  It  was  discovered 
August  3,  1908,  by  three  Catholic  priests,  the  Reverend 
J.  Bouyssoine,  the  Reverend  A.  Bouyssoine,  and  the 
Reverend  L.  Bardon.  The  bones  were  carefully  gath- 
ered and  sent  to  Professor  Marcelin  Boule  of  the  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History,  Paris,  where  they  were 
cleaned  and  as  far  as  possible  "restored." 

Professor  Boule  ascribes  to  the  skull  a  brain  capacity 
of  1600-1620  c.c.  The  skulls  of  few  professors  in  mod- 
ern universities  surpass  in  brain  capacity  the  skull  of 
this  Fossil  Man  of  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints. 

Professor  Boule  gives  this  skeleton  a  height  of  five 
feet,  three  inches,  which  is  close  to  that  of  the  Nean- 
derthal man  and  the  man  of  Spy.  Though  endowed 
with  a  large  brain,  Professor  Boule  is  not  disposed  to 
grant  that  this,  although  normally  always  a  very  fav- 
orable feature,  is  necessarily  an  index  of  high  intelli- 
gence.   It  wouldn't  do!    It  isn't  done! 


58  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Brain  ALREADY  Human 

They  would  keep  the  Old  Man  of  La  Chapelle-aux- 
Saints  as  humble  as  possible.  They  would  make  him 
stupid  if  they  could,  though,  of  course,  they  know 
nothing  about  what  went  on  within  his  brain  pan.  Pro- 
fessor Boule,  like  Dr.  Hrdlicka,  manifests  his  subjec- 
tive disposition  toward  the  Old  Man  by  his  use  of  the 
same  word  ALREADY.  He  says:  "The  brain  on 
the  whole  is  already  human  by  the  abundance  of  the 
cerebral  substance;  but  this  substance  is  still  lacking 
the  advanced  organization  which  characterizes  the 
brain  of  the  actual  man." 

The  innuendoes,  intimations  and  presuppositions  of 
this  sentence  eloquently  reveal  the  weakness  of  the 
whole  structure  erected  on  the  theory  of  man's  brute 
origin. 

What  could  Professor  Boule  know  of  the  character 
of  the  cerebral  substance  that  once  filled  the  skull  of 
La  Chapelle-aux-Saints.  Why  does  he  say  "the  brain 
is  ALREADY  human  by  the  abundance  of  the  cerebral 
substance,' '  but  that  "this  substance,"  of  which  he 
knows  nothing,  "is  still  lacking  (sic)  the  advanced  or- 
ganization (sic)  which  characterizes  the  brain  of  the 
actual  (sic)  man."  Is  this  not  an  inference,  carefully 
guarded,  but  none  the  less  a  dark  inference,  to  the  ef- 
fect that  the  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints  man,  though  a 
Neanderthal  man,  is  not  an  "actual"  man? 

John  Lubbock  (Lord  Avebury)  was  not  so  positive 
concerning  his  ability  to  judge  the  quality  of  cerebral 
substance  that  once  occupied  a  "very  ancient  skull." 
Speaking  of  the  skull  discovered  by  Dr.  Schmerling  in 
the  Cave  of  Engis,  near  Liege,  he  says  ("Pre-historic 
Times, "  sixth  edition,  New  York,  1910,  p.  317): 
is  no  doubt  very  ancient.  As  regards  form,  however, 
it  might  have  been  that  of  a  modern  European. ' '    And 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  59 

so  he  goes  on  to  quote  Huxley  ("Man's  Place  in  Na 
ture, ' '  p.  156) : ' '  There  is  no  mark  of  degradation  about 
any  part  of  its  structure.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  fair  average 
human  skull,  which  might  have  belonged  to  a  philoso- 
pher (sic)  or  might  have  contained  the  thoughtless 
brains  of  a  savage.' '  There  was  no  means  of  telling. 
Professor  Boule,  please  note ! 

Professor  Osborn  has  announced  in  connection  with 
the  Boule  " restoration"  of  the  La  Chapelle-aux-Saints 
skull  that  Professor  McGregor  is  now  engaged  upon 
the  reconstruction  of  the  entire  skeleton  and  body  of 
the  Neanderthal  man.  He  says:  "We  may  predict 
that  this  life-size  Neanderthal  model  will  be  one  of  the 
most  interesting  exhibits  in  the  American  Museum 
when  the  work  is  finally  completed,  after  the  many 
years  of  laborious  study  and  research  put  upon  it." 

Influenced  as  he  is  by  Professor  Boule,  we  may  pre- 
dict what  kind  of  a  restoration  of  this  Neanderthal  man 
will  make  its  appearance  when  under  the  stimulation 
of  Professor  Osborn  it  does  appear.  It  will  hardly  be 
an  "actual"  (sic)  man,  certainly  not  a  philosopher. 
Professor  Boule  has  seen  to  that.  What,  then,  will  it 
be  if  not  a  sub-man,  or  a  half -man,  or  a  half-ape,  or, 
right  back  to  where  we  started,  another  try  at  an  Ape- 
Man!  What  will  it  signify?  Professor  Keith  in  1911 
("Ancient  Types  of  Man")  was  certain  that  "the 
Neanderthal  type  represents  the  stock  from  which  all 
modern  races  have  arisen."  Four  years  later  ("Tin* 
Antiquity  of  Man,"  1915)  he  reverses  himself  com- 
pletely and  without  apology  by  declaring  that  the  races 
of  man  known  as  Neanderthal  have  completely  died 
out.  The  question  may  well  be  asked:  "What  do  any 
of  the  reconstructionists  know  of  the  Neanderthal 
man?" 


60  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  La  Quina  Lady 

Still  another  Neanderthal  skeleton,  known  as  the 
La  Quina  skeleton,  was  reported,  October  16,  1911,  by 
Dr.  Henri  Martin,  a  physician  of  Paris,  to  the  Acade- 
mie  des  Sciences.  The  La  Quina  skeleton  is  not  a  skele- 
ton but  what  remains  of  a  skeleton,  thus  necessitating 
the  usual  "reconstructions."  Little  need  be  said  con- 
cerning it  other  than  that  it  presents  characteristics 
similar  to  all  the  others  of  the  so-called  Neanderthal 
group. 

Dr.  Martin,  with  no  little  enthusiasm  and  a  modicum 
of  modesty,  has  created  from  the  La  Quina  bones  a 
lady  of  remarkable  quality.  Concerning  this  old-fash- 
ioned female,  Dr.  Hrdlicka  says  without  further  com- 
ment: "An  ingenious  effort  at  a  reconstruction  of 
the  head  and  neck  of  the  La  Quina  woman  by  Dr.  Mar- 
tin will  be  found  in  the  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  Prehis- 
torique  Frangaise,  1913." 

Of  course  the  time  will  come,  and  probably  soon, 
when  some  of  the  professors  now  holding  extravagant 
and  wholly  untenable  views  will  abandon  their  present 
position  of  insistence  upon  the  "squat  ferocity"  and 
other  powerful  brute-like  characteristics  of  the  Nean- 
derthal man. 

Even  now  there  is  a  tendency  to  abandon  the  very 
pictures  which  have  been  getting  into  print  as  late  as 
June,  1921,  through  such  publications  as  the  Popular 
Science  Monthly.  Referring  to  the  La  Quina  skeleton, 
Dr.  Hrdlicka  says,  p.  57,  "The  Most  Ancient  Skeletal 
Remains  of  Man,"  from  the  Government  Printing  Of- 
fice, Washington,  D.  C,  1916:  "The  long  and  other 
bones,  so  far  as  saved,  indicate  an  individual  of  mod- 
erate stature  and  good,  but  not  excessive  musculature." 
What  about  the  "gorilla-like  muscles  and  the  squat 
ferocity!"    How  did  Professor  Knight,  in  conference 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  61 

with  Professor  Osborn,  ever  arrive  at  such  phrases  in 
their  description  of  creatures  who,  as  we  shall  see,  were 
quite  normal  in  every  human  way? 

The  Heidelberg  Man 

Famous  among  the  relics  described  as  "a  precious 
document  of  man's  evolution,,  is  the  Mauer  jaw,  some- 
times called  the  Heidelberg  jaw,  discovered  October 
21,  1907,  by  two  laborers  near  the  village  of  Mauer  in 
the  Elsenz  Valley,  about  six  miles  southeast  of  Heidel- 
berg. This  jaw  is  now  preserved  in  the  Palaeontologi- 
cal  Institute  of  Heidelberg  University.  It  is  featured 
as  the  largest  jaw  thus  far  discovered.  Its  teeth  are 
well  preserved  and  are  described  as  unquestionably 
human. 

Professor  Osborn  says  of  it  that  it  represents  "a 
race  which  was  perhaps  the  predecessor  of  the  Nean- 
derthal man  in  Europe. " 

"It  would  seem,"  he  declares,  "Men  of  the  Old 
Stone  Age,"  p.  100,  "that  in  the  jaw  and  probably  in 
all  other  characters  of  the  skull  (sic),  as  they  become 
known  (sic)  the  Heidelberg  race  will  be  found  to  be  a 
Neanderthal  in  the  making,  that  is,  a  primitive,  more 
powerful  and  more  ape-like  (sic)  ancestral  form. 

"In  the  matter  of  the  receding  chin,  the  true  Nean- 
derthals of  Spy,  Malarnaud,  Krapina,  and  La  Cha- 
pelle  rank  EXACTLY  HALF  WAY  (sic)  between  the 
most  inferior  races  of  recent  man  and  the  anthropoid 
apes  (sic)  ...  all  agree  that  the  discovery  affords 
us  one  of  the  great  missing  links  (sic)  or  types  in  the 
chain  of  human  development.' ' 

There  is  no  skull  with  this  lower  jaw,  which  was  dis- 
covered seventy-nine  feet  from  the  surface.  Conse- 
quently Professor  Osborn  can  know  none  of  its  "other 
characters,"  which  point  of  vagueness  he  illumines  by 


62  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

modifying  his  thoughts  with  the  words  "as  they  be- 
come known.' '  Concerning  this  Dr.  Hrdlicka  says, 
p.  23,  "The  Most  Ancient  Skeletal  Remains  of  Man": 
"There  can  be  but  little  hope  that  other  parts  of  the 
same  skull  or  skeleton  will  ever  be  recovered."  So 
struggles  hope  with  despair  for  both  are  the  offspring 
of  opinion. 

One  of  the  odd  features  of  this  Heidelberg  massive 
jaw  with  its  comparatively  small  teeth  over  which  so 
much  fuss  has  been  raised  is  the  fact  that  Professor 
Birkner,  in  the  collection  of  the  Munich  Institute  for 
Palaeontology,  exhibits  a  modern  Eskimo  skull  in 
which  exactly  the  same  features  occur.  See  third  lec- 
ture, Innsbruck  series,  Erich  Wasmann,  October  18, 
1909,  for  confirmation  of  this.  Those  who  are  so  dis- 
posed can  use  the  modern  Eskimo  in  elaborating  a  new 
missing  link  of  their  own.  Perhaps  Professor  Osborn 
does  not  know  of  the  existence  of  this  modern  Eskimo 
jaw,  for  he  makes  no  reference  to  it  of  any  kind  in  his 
latest  work,  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age." 

Osborn  does  admit,  p.  232  of  the  same  work,  that 
"the  long  Neanderthal  face  is  somewhat  similar  to 
that  of  the  Eskimo,  and  is  in  contrast  with  the  very 
short  face  of  the  existing  Australians  and  Tasman- 
ians."  He  even  admits  that  the  "Neanderthal  nose, 
far  from  resembling  that  of  the  anthropoids,  differs 
from  it  more  than  does  that  of  some  recent  human 
types."  He  refuses  to  accept  the  conclusions  of  the 
many  anatomists  who  have  followed  Huxley  in  their 
description  of  the  Australian  and  Tasmanian  skulls 
as  "  Neanderthaloid. " 

Osborn  versus  Osborn 

At  this  point  he  stumbles  into  an  embarrassing  con- 
tradiction.   He  insists  with  emphasis  that  the  Nean- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  63 

derthal  race  is  the  immediate  predecessor  of  modern 
man,  p.  8,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  guide 
leaflet  No.  52.  Yet  in  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age," 
pp.  233-234,  he  rushes  to  the  support  of  Professor 
Boule  by  quoting  the  latter  as  follows:  "All  these 
modern  so-called  Neanderthaloids  are  nothing  but 
varieties  of  individuals  of  Homo  sapiens  (modern 
man),  remarkable  for  the  accidental  exaggeration  of 
certain  anatomical  traits  which  are  normally  developed 
in  all  specimens  of  the  Neanderthal  man. 

"The  simplest  explanation  of  these  accidents  in 
most  cases  is  atavism  or  reversion.  We  cannot  assert 
THAT  THERE  HAS  NEVER  BEEN  AN  INFU- 
SION OF  NEANDERTHALOID  BLOOD  IN  THE 
GROUPS  BELONGING  TO  SPECIES  HOMO  SA- 
PIENS (modern  man)  BUT  WHAT  SEEMS  TO  BE 
QUITE  CERTAIN  IS  THAT  ANY  SUCH  INFU- 
SION CAN  HAVE  BEEN  ONLY  ACCIDENTAL, 
FOR  THERE  IS  NO  RECENT  TYPE  WHICH  CAX 
BE  CONSIDERED  EVEN  AS  A  MODIFIED  DI- 
RECT DESCENDANT  OF  THE  NEANDER- 
THALS." 

Was  there  ever  such  contradiction, — "the  Neander- 
thal race  is  the  immediate  predecessor  of  modern  man, 
yet  no  modern  man  can  be  considered  even  as  a  modi- 
fied direct  descendant  of  the  Neanderthals."  The  oak 
is  the  immediate  predecessor  of  the  acorn,  yet  there 
is  no  acorn  which  can  be  considered  even  as  a  modified 
direct  descendant  of  the  oak.  In  vaudeville  they  would 
call  this  a  scream.  But  it  isn't  vaudeville,  it's  science. 
The  science  of  the  materialistic  evolutionist  who  so 
loses  his  way  in  his  own  forest  that  he  can  never  hope 
to  retrace  his  own  steps. 

What  is  the  purpose  of  this  scientific  hodge-podge 
which  leans  so  heavily  upon  false  insinuations .'  Chil- 
dren visiting  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  His- 


64  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tory  are  incapable  of  analyzing  the  flimsy  contradic- 
tory opinions  presented  to  them  through  the  means  of 
graphic  illustrations.  They  cannot  see  nor  can  they 
hope  to  see  anything  but  "facts"  in  the  feeble  and 
barren  speculations  thrust  upon  them.  Professor  G. 
Steinmann  says  ("The  Theory  of  Evolution,"  Karl 
Frank,  p.  230) :  "The  current  evolutional  hypotheses 
have  driven  me  almost  to  despair.  When  a  scientific 
branch  of  such  predominant  importance  as  the  theory 
of  descent  gets  off  the  proper  track  it  naturally  detri- 
mentally influences  all  the  branches  of  knowledge  with 
which  it  is  organically  associated. 

"So  it  is  also  with  palaeontology,  which  instead  of 
having  an  independent  basis  has  become  a  vassal  of 
the  Darwinistic-Haeckelistic  theory  of  evolution.  It 
has  taken  the  significance  of  the  formation  of  species, 
without  proof,  into  the  area  of  fossil  material.  No 
wonder,  then,  that  palaeontology  could  not  follow  these 
academical  prescriptions,  and,  when  it  tried  to  do  so, 
made  a  fiasco." 

Professor  Ch.  Deperet  says  ("Umbildung  der  Tier- 
welt,"  p.  113):  "The  embryological  methods  of 
Haeckel  have  led  the  whole  of  palaeontological  research 
in  a  wrong  direction.  The  naive  pedigrees  constructed 
according  to  them  have  crumbled  just  as  speedily  as 
they  have  arisen.  They  cover,  as  with  rotten  wood, 
the  ground  of  the  forest,  and  only  render  more  diffi- 
cult the  progress  of  the  future," 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Gibkaltae  Man 

The  Gibraltar  man — A  "  scientific ' '  explanation — The  Maustier  man — 
The  Taubach  teeth — Other  jaws — Other  Neanderthals — Wiping  them 
out — Confusion  knows  no  bounds — The  St.  Brelade  man — Osborn 's 
dilemma. 

The  manner  in  which  the  whole  brute  theory  is  forced 
with  subtle  plausibility  to  seem  to  be  that  which  it  is 
said  to  be  but  which,  when  scrutinized  with  ever  so  lit- 
tle care,  it  is  found  not  to  be,  is  nicely  exposed  by  the 
Gibraltar  skull.  This  skull  now  preserved  in  the  Mu- 
seum of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  England,  was 
photographed  through  the  courtesy  of  Professor  Ar- 
thur Keith,  curator  of  the  institution,  by  Dr.  Ales 
Hrdlicka,  curator,  Division  of  Physical  Anthropology, 
United  States  National  Museum. 

On  plates  11,  12  and  13,  Smithsonian  Report,  1913, 
Hrdlicka  presents  three  photographs,  front  view,  side 
view  and  top  view,  of  the  specimen.  Professor  Osborn 
in  his  1921  edition  of  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p. 
215,  presents  a  much-reduced  reproduction  of  the 
Hrdlicka  photograph,  full  face  only. 

There  is  room  on  the  same  page,  now  occupied  by 
white  space  and  by  nothing  else,  for  the  side  view  and 
the  top  view.  Professor  Osborn  ignores  them,  though 
on  p.  224  of  the  same  book  he  is  pleased  to  present  front, 
side  and  top  view  of  the  toothless  old  man  of  La  Cha- 
pelle-aux-Saints. 

Not  only  what  he  fails  to  present,  but  what  he  fails 
to  say,  is  significant.     Nobody  knows  anything  con- 

65 


66  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

corning  the  history  of  the  Gibraltar  skull.  It  was  first 
mentioned  in  Falconer's  ' * Palaeontological  Memoirs,' ' 
published  1868.  Professor  Osborn,  quoting  Dr. 
Hrdlicka,  had  before  him  the  matter  quoted,  from 
which  the  following  is  significant :  ' '  No  record  exists 
of  the  precise  circumstances  under  which  this  interest- 
ing relic  was  found."  It  was  "yielded  by  the  rocks 
many  years  since." 

Professor  Keith,  relying  upon  Professor  Broca,  who 
failed  dismally  to  record  the  facts  of  the  discovery  of 
the  Gibraltar  skull,  if  he  ever  knew  them,  thinks  it  was 
taken  out  from  a  "very  compact  and  adherent  gangue" 
in  Forbes  quarry  on  the  north  front  of  the  rock  of 
Gibraltar  as  early  as  1848.  Nobody  knows  in  what 
year  it  appeared  for  the  reason  that  nobody  paid  any 
attention  to  it  after  it  did  appear  until  many  years 
later. 

Mentioning  its  examination  by  Huxley,  Quatrefages, 
Hamy,  Macnamara,  Klaatsch,  Schwalbe,  Sollas,  Sera 
and  Keith,  Dr.  Hrdlicka  says :  "  It  is  now  universally 
regarded  as  a  representative,  possibly  a  very  early  one, 
of  the  Neanderthal  man." 

Describing  the  aspect  of  the  face  as  "semi-human, 
apish,"  Dr.  Hrdlicka  says:  "The  upper  alveolar 
process  is  largely  absorbed,  so  that  we  cannot  judge 
of  the  original  prognathism,  which  however  was  doubt- 
less well  marked."  Why  does  Dr.  Hrdlicka  use  the 
word  DOUBTLESS  when  he  himself  admits,  and  his 
photographs  show,  that  he  couldn't  judge,  with  doubt 
or  without  doubt,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  nothing 
there  to  judge. 

A  "Scientific"  Explanation 

With  certainty  Professor  Osborn  declares  that  the 
Gibraltar  skull  was  discovered  1848  by  Lieutenant 
Flint.    He  says  it  is  well  preserved  and  that  the  face 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph   by  Edirin  R.  Sanborn. 

Gorilla's  face.  Compare  with  the  imaginary  heads  of  the  Trinil 
Ape-Man  and  Neanderthal  Man  in  the  progressive  series  as 
restored  by  J.  H.  McGregor,  in  the  group  of  three  busts.  The 
gorilla's  face  is  hidden  behind  a  dense  thicket  of  whiskers. 
The  Trinil  Ape-Man  is  an  improvement  on  this  beast,  but 
has  lost  his  whiskers.  The  Neanderthal  Man,  which  is  a 
further  improvement  on  the  Trinil  Ape-Man,  has  regained  Ids 
whiskers.  The  Cro-Magnon  Man,  as  you  will  note  by  referring 
to  the  group  of  three  busts,  must  have  been  the  inventor  of 
the  razor.  His  face  is  smooth.  When  did  beards  evolute,  and 
why  did  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  grow  up  without  one  I 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  67 

and  base  of  the  cranium  are  remarkably  complete.  The 
base  of  the  cranium  is  remarkably  complete,  but  the 
face  is  sadly  defective.  There  is  no  lower  jaw  at  all, 
and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  upper  alveolar  process  is 
largely  absorbed  so  that  there  can  be  no  judgment  of 
any  kind  concerning  the  original  prognathism.  Yet 
that  word  DOUBTLESS  stands! 

Curiously  (Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,  p.  216)  Pro- 
fessor Osborn  says  he  doesn't  know  where  the  skull 
was  found,  and  that  although  its  archaeologic  age  can- 
not, therefore,  be  determined,  it  probably  belongs  to 
the  Mousterian  period.  He  might  as  well  have  guessed 
anything  else  as  that,  but  guessing  is  not  science — 
guessing  is  opinion  and  very  often  very  poor  opinion, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  bull  seals  which  will  tell  their  ex- 
traordinary story  a  little  later. 

The  Gibraltar  skull  is  a  very  small  skull.  The  cra- 
nial capacity  of  the  average  adult  white  woman  of  the 
present  time  is  about  1325  c.c.  Professor  Keith  gives 
the  cranial  capacity  of  the  Gibraltar  skull  as  1100  c.c. 

Dr.  Hrdlicka  says:  " There  is  a  marked  and  quite 
heavy  supra-orbital  arch"  ("The  Most  Ancient  Skele- 
tal Remains  of  Man,"  p.  25). 

Professor  Osborn  says:  "The  slight  development 
of  the  supra-orbital  ridges  and  the  small  size  of  the 
brain  are  explained  by  the  theory  that  the  skull  be- 
longed to  a  female."    What  about  the  contradiction? 

Of  course  there  must  be  an  explanation.  This  kind 
of  science  wouldn't  be  science  if  it  couldn't  explain. 
Consequently  a  new  theory  is  formulated  with  the  de- 
velopment of  every  difficulty,  until  there  are  so  many 
theories  that  the  older  ones  are  accepted  as  "historical 
fact"  by  students  who  fail  to  take  the  trouble  to  trace 
them  to  their  origin. 

In  all  the  darkness  and  confusion,  in  all  the  guarded 
admissions  and  skilfully  avoided  references  to  embar- 


68  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

rassing  difficulties  Professor  Osborn  finds  peace  and 
conviction.  Completing  his  references  to  the  Gibral- 
tar skull  he  says  (p.  217)  :  "The  type  skull  of  this 
great  extinct  race  of  men  is  that  of  Neanderthal,  ap- 
preciated by  Lydell  and  Huxley,  but  passed  over  by 
Darwin,  AND  FINALLY  ESTABLISHED  BY 
SCHWALBE  AS  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  MISS- 
ING LINK  BETWEEN  THE  EXISTING  SPECIES 
OF  MODERN  MAN  AND  THE  ANTHROPOID 
APES." 

That  is  what  Professor  Osborn  intended  to  say  from 
the  beginning.  That  is  what  he  started  out  to  say. 
And  he  said  it — though  upon  what  he  based  the  state- 
ment he  has  no  where  disclosed.    Science?    Alas! 

The  Moustier  Man 

Of  the  insignificant  specimens  admitted  to  be  defec- 
tive, unsatisfactory  and  of  little  help  to  the  "scientist" 
bent  on  establishing  the  theory  of  man's  brute  origin 
there  should  perhaps  be  some  hasty  mention  here  of 
the  Moustier  man  discovered  March,  1908,  by  0.  Hau- 
ser,  at  Le  Moustier,  France.  Professor  Klaatsch  re- 
gards the  skeleton  as  that  of  a  boy  of  sixteen  years, 
classifying  him  as  Neanderthal. 

The  Taubach  Teeth 

Described  as  "of  little  value,"  because  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  their  meaning  in  human  chronology,  are 
other  specimens  which  even  Hrdlicka  passes  over  with 
scant  notice.  They  are  the  two  teeth  of  Taubach.  One 
of  these,  a  molar,  was  found  at  Taubach,  near  Weimar, 
Germany,  1892,  by  A.  Weiss.  The  other,  also  a  molar, 
was  found  by  a  laborer  in  the  same  district.  Their 
chief  dignity  consists  in  a  claim  that  when  discovered 
they  were  resting  in  old  Quaternary  deposits. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  69 

Other  Jaws 

May,  1914,  a  lower  jaw  was  found  near  Weimar,  not 
far  from  Taubach.  Schwalbe  assigned  it  to  the  Nean- 
derthal class.  A  lower  jaw  was  found,  1889,  in  the 
cave  of  Malarnaud,  near  the  village  of  Montseron, 
France.  Another  lower  jaw  was  found,  1866,  in  a  cave 
at  La  Naulette,  Belgium,  with  a  few  fragments  of  hu- 
man bone. 

The  fragments  of  a  lower  jaw  of  a  child,  age  8  or 
10  years,  was  found,  1880,  in  the  Sipka  cave,  near 
Sternberg,  Moravia. 

Other  Neanderthals 

Between  1909  and  1912  Capitan  and  Peyrony  gath- 
ered the  parts  of  several  skeletons  at  La  Ferrassie. 
They  also  found,  1909,  in  the  cave  of  Pech  de  PAze, 
near  Sarlat,  a  child's  skull,  all  of  which  were  turned 
over  to  Professor  Boule  who  has  already  described 
them  as  Neanderthal. 

Other  skeletal  remains  can  be  described  as  the  Ochoz, 
Brux,  Brunn,  Canstadt,  Combe-Capelle,  Eguisheim, 
Galley  Hill,  Ipswich  (parts  of  skulls  and  skeletons) 
and  a  lower  jaw  discovered  at  Banolas,  Spain. 

Wiping  Them  Ouv 

The  Predmost  remains  discovered  by  Professor  K. 
J.  Maska,  at  Predmost,  Moravia,  consist  of  the  skele- 
tal parts  of  twenty  bodies,  fourteen  of  which  are  in  ex- 
cellent condition,  some  of  the  skeletons  being  almost 
complete.  Hrdlicka  who  has  seen  the  collection,  says : 
"It  represents  in  a  measure  the  much-searched-for 
bridge  between  the  Neanderthal  and  recent  man.' 
(Smithsonian  Publication  2300,  p.  62).  He  probably 
wishes  he  had  never  made  this  statement.  However, 
as  he  has  not  corrected  it,  it  stands  against  him. 


70  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Osborn  complicates  this  opinion  by  asserting  ("Men 
of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  257)  that  the  Neanderthal, 
in  Hrdlicka's  judgment,  partly  evolved  into  the  lower 
races  of  Homo  sapiens,  and  that  traces  of  Neanderthal 
blood  and  physiognomy  are  not  lacking  even  among 
modern  Europeans.  Osborn  himself  holds  that  there 
have  been  no  "partly  evolved"  (whatever  that  may 
mean)  factors  in  the  whole  business,  but  that  on  the 
contrary  the  Neanderthals  were  a  side  branch  of  the 
human  race  which  became  wholly  extinct,  leaving  no 
trace  of  itself  of  any  kind  whatsoever,  except  a  few 
bones. 

In  this  opinion  Osborn  derives  satisfaction  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  shared  by  Boule  and  Schwalbe.  As 
to  just  how  long  it  will  be  so  shared  he  is  not  so  sure, 
for  he  says:  "It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  skele- 
tons discovered  at  Predmost  may  modify  this  conclu- 
sion and  demonstrate  Hrdlicka's  theory  that  the  Nean- 
derthals survived  and  left  descendants  along  the  val- 
ley of  the  Danube. ' ' 

At  any  rate,  Osborn  maintains  the  belief  that  after 
degenerating  physically  and  industrially  (which  is  not 
much  of  an  evolution)  they  were  wiped  out  some  20,- 
000  or  25,000  years  before  our  era  by  the  superior  Cro- 
Magnons,  another  race  of  cave  men.  See  l  i  Men  of  the 
Old  Stone  Age,"  pp.  257-258.  In  the  meantime,  Pro- 
fessor Arthur  Keith,  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  who, 
as  one  of  Europe's  most  distinguished  authorities  is 
recognized  by  Osborn,  takes  all  the  facts  in  the  case, 
and  in  a  single  statement  smashes  the  missing  link  sig- 
nificance of  the  Neanderthals:  "We  are  compelled  to 
admit  that  men  of  modern  type  had  been  in  existence 
long  bfore  the  Neanderthal  type" — another  case  sim- 
ilar to  the  appearance  on  earth  of  the  horse  before  its 
supposed  ancestors  were  born — another  case  not  of 
evolution  but  of  degeneration. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  71 

Confusion  Knows  No  Bounds 

The  generosity  of  Osborn  in  assigning  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years  to  his  age  periods  is  worthy  of  note 
for  the  reason  that  he  fixes  the  beginning  of  the  age 
of  man  at  some  500,000  years  ago.  On  this  point  Karl 
Frank  ("Theory  of  Evolution,"  London,  1913,  pp, 
18-21),  throws  a  strong  light  revealing  obstacles  that 
must  arrest  the  unreckoning  and  impulsive  speed  of  the 
too  eager  driver.  He  says:  "It  is  only  when  it  is 
known  which  stratum  or  layer  is  older  or  younger  than 
another  that  we  can  also  know  which  organisms  are 
older  or  younger  than  others  accordingly.  This  de- 
termination of  the  age  of  the  earth's  strata  is,  however, 
a  very  difficult  matter,  and  the  course  of  evidence  which 
led  to  the  generally  recognized  arrangement  of  the 
four  (or  five)  groups  of  formations,  is  not  far  removed 
from  a  vicious  circle,  especially  when  we  consider  the 
mode  of  expression  used  by  many  authors.  (Compare 
the  methods  of  age-determination  by  E.  Kayser, 
"Lehrbuch  der  Geolog.  Formationskunde,"  Stuttgart, 
1909,  p.  2 ;  and  also  the  Introduction  of  M.  Neumayr, 
Erdgeschichte  II.) 

' '  The  uncertainty  which  exists,  if  we  accept  the  usual 
division  into  separate  groups  determined  by  age,  may 
be  judged  by  the  following  short  consideration:  If  it 
be  no  longer  a  question  whether  the  organisms  gener- 
ally vary,  but  rather  how  they  transformed  themselves, 
then  it  is  not  sufficient  to  compare  formations  differing 
considerably  in  age,  but  those  immediately  following 
each  other  must  be  known,  since  it  is  only  when  it  is 
known  which  formation  was  the  next  to  be  deposited, 
that  the  further  fate  of  a  definite  organic  group  can 
be  properly  followed  up  without  a  break. 

"The  next  younger,  which  we  will  call  'b,'  need  not 
necessarily  be  deposited  over  stratum  'a'  which  has 


72  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

just  been  formed,  but  may  originate  in  quite  another 
region.  The  stratum  'a'  can,  for  instance,  become  dry 
land  by  the  retreat  of  the  sea  in  which  it  was  formed. 
The  sea  itself  departs,  together  with  its  organisms, 
which  hitherto  had  been  buried  in  'a,'  to  some  other 
region  and  there  deposits  the  successors  of  the  organ- 
isms buried  in  'a.'  If  there  be  no  means  of  recognizing 
this  next  younger  deposit,  or  if  it  be  again  covered  by 
the  sea,  then  nothing  can  be  said  regarding  the  evolu- 
tionary progress  of  such  a  group,  or  at  least  there  ex- 
ists a  gap.  Then  it  may  happen  that  the  animal  groups, 
which  we  learnt  to  recognize  in  the  strata  complex  'a,' 
in  that  deposit  ('c')  in  which  we  meet  them  again  for 
the  first  time,  show  an  entirely  peculiar  appearance,  so 
that  at  the  first  glance  no  one  would  think  of  any  con- 
nection with  the  fauna  of  'a.' 

"If,  however,  the  groups  of  formation  'a*  show  a 
distinct  tendency  to  vary  in  a  definite  direction,  and  if 
from  a  comparison  of  the  fauna  of  'c'  with  that  of  'a' 
it  is  seen  that  the  heterogeneousness  consists  in  a  great 
but  apparently  interposed  increase  of  just  those  vari- 
ational tendencies  evinced  in  'a,'  then  it  may  be  as- 
sumed with  great  probability  that  the  organisms  in  'c' 
are  the  modified  offspring  of  those  of  'a.'  The  inter- 
mediate links  lie  buried  in  'b,'  and  this  formation  is 
possibly  now  and  has  been  for  a  long  period  covered 
with  water  and  therefore  inaccessible  to  us.  The  same 
process  can  also  be  repeated  for  *  c. '  One  of  the  fauna 
of  'c'  approximating  thereto,  but  greatly  modified,  may 
for  instance  only  be  found  again  in  an  obviously  much 
younger  formation,  say  in  %'  and  this  may  be  in 
North  America  while  'c'  may  be  in  Europe.  (The 
strata  'd'  and  'e*  lie  perhaps  under  water  or  have  not 
been  investigated.) 

"If  we  accept  a  connection  between  'f,'  'c,'  and  'a,' 
then  we  have  obviously  only  important  outposts  as  it 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  73 

were  in  the  march  of  evolution  of  a  particular  group, 
and  perhaps  also  a  general  indication  how  the  outpost 
'f '  can  have  been  derived  from  'c'  and  'a/  but  without 
any  precise  knowledge  of  the  process  involved. 

"Only  in  a  few  cases:  as,  for  example,  the  same  sea 
in  which  the  formation  'a'  was  deposited,  may,  in  a 
short  time,  return  to  its  old  position  (sea  oscillations), 
and  consequently  the  same  organisms  also  return,  so 
that  in  the  stratum  'b'  which  is  formed  after  the  re- 
turn we  have  before  us  the  immediate  descendants  of 
'a.'  Several  such  cases  can  be  recognized  with  suffi- 
cient certainty.  Then  by  comparing  'b'  and  'a'  we 
arrive  under  certain  circumstances  at  a  clear  insight 
into  the  mode  of  variation  and  its  rapidity,  etc. 

"If  the  fauna  of  ' a,'  or  a  group  of  the  same,  should 
not,  generally  speaking,  reappear,  and  is  no  longer 
seen  at  the  present  day,  then  it  is  '  extinct. '  How  and 
when  it  became  so,  we  are  so  far  ignorant. 

"It  is  therefore  seen  how  difficult  it  is  to  make  clear 
the  process  of  evolution  for  a  definite  group.  Many 
geologists  entirely  despaired  of  the  possibility  of  so 
exact  a  definition  of  the  ages  of  the  formations  as  was 
needful  to  that  end.  Incomplete,  very  incomplete  in- 
deed, must  our  knowledge  ever  be." 

The  confusion  knows  no  bounds.  The  astronomers 
arriving  at  an  estimate  of  the  world's  age  through 
theories  based  on  energy  and  heat  conclude  that  this 
planet  came  into  existence  100,000,000  years  ago. 

The  geologists  on  the  other  hand  are  quite  certain 
the  world  is  500,000,000  years  old.  Here  we  confront 
a  chasm  in  which  is  buried  a  difference  of  some  400,- 
000,000  years  between  the  two  scientific  theories.  Like 
Mr.  H.  G.  Wells,  we  can  do  little  more  than  anyone  does 
who  takes  a  long  breath,  a  short  run  and  spans  such 
spaces  in  a  jump.  Later  we  shall  return  to  this  spec- 
tacular dispute  on  "age"  for  another  purpose.    For 


74  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

the  present  it  is  sufficient  to  add  to  the  conflict  by  the 
reminder  that  man  has  been  given  a  life  on  this  planet 
of  some  500,000  years.  Of  course  the  scientific  world 
was  shocked  when  Theodore  Moreaux,  director  of  the 
observatory  at  Bourges,  entered  the  controversy  by 
asserting,  February,  1921,  that  these  extraordinary 
figures,  as  all  the  fossils  show,  are  preposterous,  and 
that  the  human  race  cannot  boast  of  more  than  some 
thousands  of  years  instead  of  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands claimed  by  the  palaeontologists. 

Doubtless  there  will  be  a  controversy,  but  there  need 
be  none  that  will  occasion  surprise.  There  has  never 
been  anything  else  on  the  subject  of  the  earth's  age. 
No  two  geologists  are  agreed  on  any  detail  of  their 
speculations,  and  in  their  divergence  of  opinion  they 
range  from  hundreds  of  millions  down  to  ten  thousand 
years.  Penck  asserts  that  the  post-glacial  period  in 
which  we  are  now  living  must  have  lasted  for  at  least 
20,000  years.  Sollas  insists  on  not  more  than  7,000 
years.  Wright  furnishes  much  evidence  to  prove  that 
5,000  years  covers  all  the  requirements  of  science.  De 
Geers  offers  proof  to  show  that  it  is  9,000  years  since 
the  ground  on  which  the  University  of  Stockholm 
stands  became  free  from  ice,  and  that  the  conditions 
observable  in  a  post-glacial  lake  bed  in  Sweden  prove 
that  the  ice  left  that  particular  region  5,000  years  ago. 

All  the  views  put  forward  respecting  the  earth's  age 
are  extremely  tentative  and  contradictory,  as  we  shall 
see,  further  on.  No  other  subject  of  science  is  so 
shifting,  so  uncertain,  so  crammed  with  conflict,  yet  the 
ape-man  evolutionist  settles  upon  age  periods  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  the  scheme  he  is  trying  to  support. 
As  he  finds  them  necessary  to  his  formula  he  adopts 
them,  as  if  they  had  a  scientific  status.  Charles  Dar- 
win never  ceased  to  dread  these  difficulties,  which  so 
upset  him  that  at  times  he  was  actually  ready  to  aban- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  75 

don  the  whole  theory  of  evolution  as  something  which 
got  farther  and  farther  away  from  proof  as  its  follow- 
ers got  farther  and  farther  into  its  difficulties.  Writ- 
ing to  Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  July,  1871,  he  moaned: 
"1  feel  sick  of  everything  and  if  I  could  occupy  my 
time  I  would  never  publish  another  word.  I  can  say 
nothing  more  about  missing  links  than  what  I  have 
said.  I  should  rely  much  on  pre-silurian  times;  but 
then  comes  Sir  W.  Thomson,  like  an  odious  spectre.' 

Explaining  this  expression  of  disappointment  and 
chagrin,    Darwin's    son,    Francis,    says    ("Darwin,' 
1893,  p.  292) :    "My  father,  as  an  evolutionist,  felt  that 
he  required  more  time  than  Sir  W.  Thomson's  estimate 
of  the  age  of  the  world  allows." 

Obviously  Darwin  had  some  foretaste  of  the  future 
with  respect  to  "missing  links."  He  felt  that  they 
were  but  a  sieve  and  yet  of  such  a  sieve  he  had  to  con- 
struct the  bottom  of  his  pail,  knowing  that  it  would  not 
hold  water  when  complete.  Hence  the  further  difficulty 
presented  by  Sir  W.  Thomson  plunged  him  into  de- 
spair. 

The  St.  Brelade  Man 

Of  the  palaeontological  evidence  so  clumsily  fabri- 
cated in  support  of  the  theory  of  man's  brute  origin 
little  else  remains  to  be  described.  There  are  twelve 
teeth  reported  1910  by  E.  T.  Nicolle  and  J.  Sinel  of 
the  Island  of  Jersey  in  "Man,"  volume  10,  No.  102,  pp. 
185-188.  These  teeth  were  discovered  in  an  old  cave 
on  the  Island  of  Jersey,  and  are  described  as  "belong- 
ing to  a  man  of  the  Moustierian  epoch." 

The  cave  is  known  as  La  Cotte  de  St.  Brelade.  It 
opens  into  a  rough,  irregular  cliff  near  the  eastern 
horn  of  St.  Brelade 's  Bay.  Repeated  explorations, 
carried  on  between  1881  and  1910,  have  revealed  no 


76  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

other  human  relics  within  the  cave,  although  it  has 
been  systematically  explored  even  to  the  sifting  of 
nearly  every  particle  of  debris,  black  soil,  ashes,  car- 
bonized wood  and  clay,  etc.,  within  its  confines. 

On  the  assumption  that  all  the  teeth  must  have  be- 
longed to  the  same  skull,  Messrs.  Keith  and  Knowles 
have  reconstructed  the  upper  and  lower  dental  arches 
of  the  St.  Brelade  man.  All  the  teeth  are  large,  con- 
sequently the  reconstructed  dental  arches  are  consid- 
erably larger  than  they  would  be  if  they  were  smaller 
than  they  are.  This  statement,  seemingly  facetious,  is 
quite  as  scientific  as  it  ought  to  be.  It  reports  the  truth, 
and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

Hrdlicka  says  (Smithsonian  Publication  2300,  p. 
48):  "They  (the  Jersey  teeth)  show  an  early  man, 
probably  an  earlier  representative  of  the  Neanderthal 
man,  already  quite  advanced  in  dentures  from  the  pre- 
human forms  (what  pre-human  forms!),  but  still  with 
teeth  much  more  powerful  as  well  as  less  specifically 
differentiated  than  those  of  present  man." 

We  have  seen  that  there  have  been  no  "pre-human 
forms"  and  that  the  scientists  who  continue  their  eager 
search  for  ' '  pre-human  forms ' '  have  confessed  that  as 
far  as  their  efforts  have  been  rewarded  there  are  no 
"pre-human  forms."  That  is,  indeed,  an  historical 
fact.  It  cannot  be  repeated  too  often.  Why,  then,  the 
Hrdlicka  statement  to  the  effect  that  in  these  Jersey 
teetL  we  see  a  Neanderthal  man  in  the  making,  one  al- 
ready considerably  improved  on  the  earlier  editions 
issued  in  a  progressive  series  so  full  of  evolutionary 
advancement  that  the  well-defined  mile  posts  along  the 
route  are  appreciated  by  the  most  casual  observer. 
There  is  no  questioning  the  sincerity  of  Hrdlicka.  He 
really  believes  just  that,  because  that  is  what  he  has 
been  taught  to  believe. 

In  the  accumulations  of  another  cave  with  a  com- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  77 

munication  between  the  two  there  may  yet  be  found 
further  " surprises"  equal  in  significance  to  all  the 
other  surprises  thus  far  reported  by  science.  Even 
now  (1921)  an  effort  is  being  made  to  locate  them. 

Referring  to  the  chief  feature  of  the  Jersey  surprise 
Osborn  says  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  226) : 
"The  roots,  instead  of  tapering  to  a  point  below,  as 
in  modern  man,  form  a  broad  stout  column,  support- 
ing the  crown,  adapted  to  a  sweeping  motion  of  the 
jaw.  THIS  SPECIAL  FEATURE  ALONE  WOULD 
EXCLUDE  THE  NEANDERTHALS  FROM  THE 
ANCESTRY  OF  THE  HIGHER  RACES."  Here  we 
have  confirmation  of  one  of  our  own  surprises  and  are 
accordingly  surprised  all  the  more. 

Thus  it  would  appear  that  if  we  moderns  are  "the 
higher  races"  the  Neanderthals  were  not  our  ances- 
tors at  all,  and  therefore  cannot  be  regarded  as  the 
missing  links  connecting  us  with  the  ape. 

Professor  Osborn  is  in  considerable  doubt  on  this 
point,  despite  his  scientific  convictions  and  regardless 
of  his  final  exclusion  of  the  Neanderthals  from  the  an- 
cestry of  modern  man.  He  says  ("Men  of  the  Old 
Stone  Age,"  p.  7) :  "Between  1848  and  1914  successive 
discoveries  have  been  made  of  a  series  of  human  fos- 
sils belonging  to  intermediate  races:  some  of  these 
are  now  recognized  as  missing  links  between  the  exist- 
ing human  species,  Homo  sapiens,  and  the  anthropoid 
apes ;  and  others  as  the  earliest  known  forms  of  Homo 
sapiens." 

Osborn  's  Dilemma 

Professor  Osborn  proves  by  his  own  table  of  these 
successive  "discoveries"  that  he  is  conscious  not 
merely  of  confusion  but  also  of  misstatement.  Men- 
tioning seventeen  discoveries  in  chronological  order 
from  1848  to  1914,  he  says,  let  us  repeat:    "Some  of 


78  GOD— .OR  GORILLA 

these  are  now  recognized  as  missing  links  between  the 
existing  human  species  and  the  anthropoid  apes.19 

Of  the  seventeen  discoveries  ten  are  Neanderthal. 
But  these,  he  says,  are  not  missing  links.  Professor 
Arthur  Keith  won't  let  him.  Therefore  we  must  find 
the  missing  links  among  the  remaining  seven  discov- 
eries. 

One  of  the  remaining  seven  discoveries  is  the  Trinil 
Ape-Man,  whose  ignominious  collapse  is  treated  else- 
where in  this  review.  As  no  scientist,  however  rash, 
can  now  describe  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  as  the  missing 
link,  there  remain  but  six  discoveries  to  which  Osborn 
could  possibly  refer.  One  of  these  six  is  the  exploded 
Piltdown  man,  whose  disgraceful  history  needs  no  fur- 
ther attention  here. 

This  leaves  but  five  discoveries,  some  of  which  "are 
now  recognized  as  missing  links."  One  of  these  five  is 
the  Heidelberg  jaw. 

Of  this  Heidelberg  jaw  Osborn  himself  says,  p.  99 : 
"It  is  absolutely  certain  that  these  remains  are  human. 
They  show  no  trace  of  being  intermediate  between  man 
and  the  anthropoid  ape.  In  comparison  with  the  jaws 
of  Neanderthal  races,  as  found  at  Spy,  in  Belgium,  and 
at  Krapina,  in  Croatia,  we  may  consider  the  Heidel- 
berg jaw  as  pre-Neanderthaloid.,,  Page  100  he  says: 
"  ....  as  they  become  known  the  Heidelberg  race 
will  be  found  to  be  Neanderthal  in  the  making,  that  is 
a  primitive,  more  powerful  and  more  ape-like  ancestral 
form. ' ' 

This  Heidelberg  jaw  must  then  be  one  of  the  dis- 
coveries recognized  as  missing  links  between  the  ex- 
isting human  species  and  the  anthropoid  apes,  though 
Osborn  himself  says  it  is  no  such  thing  in  one  breath 
while  suggesting  it  must  be  just  such  a  thing  in  the 
next. 

The  Neanderthals  and  the  pre-Neanderthals  must  be 


^ 


Courtesi/  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Gorilla  profile.  Note  supra-orbital  ridge  over  eye;  absence  of 
ehin.  Also  note  bushy  side-whiskers.  The  ape-man  evolu- 
tionist informs  us  that  the  Negro  is  closer  to  this  creature 
than  the  white  man,  yet  the  Negro's  brow  is  wholly  free 
from  the  supra-orbital  ridges  which  sonic  white  men  poss 
to  a  marked  degree.  Compare  ear  and  brow  with  ear  and 
brow  of  orang.  The  cranial  capacity  of  both  creatures 
approximates  600cc.  as  against  1550-1880cc,  the  cranial 
capacity  of  the  Cro-Magnon  Cave  Man. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  79 

human  beings — true  men — or  they  must  be  missing 
links  connecting  true  men  with  apes.  At  times  Profes- 
sor Osborn  infers  they  are  this  and  at  other  times  he 
intimates  they  are  that.  However,  as  science  does 
not  recognize  the  Heidelberg  jaw,  regardless  of  Pro- 
fessor Osborn 's  confused  statements,  as  a  missing 
link,  there  remain  but  four  other  discoveries  to  justify 
his  vague  declaration.  These  are  two  skulls,  discov- 
ered 1867,  at  Furfooz,  Belgium;  three  skeletons  and 
fragments  of  two  others  discovered  1868  and  known 
as  the  Cro-Magnon,  Dordogne;  two  skeletons  discov- 
ered 1901,  in  the  Grimaldi  Grotto,  Mentone,  and  two 
skeletons  discovered  1914  at  Oberkassel,  near  Bonn, 
Germany. 

Two  of  these,  1868  and  1914,  are  described  as  "  com- 
paratively modern  Cro-Magnon  true  men"  and  cannot, 
therefore,  be  recognized  as  missing  links.  There  are 
many  living  creatures  who  don't  compare  with  them 
at  all  except  to  suffer  by  the  comparison. 

The  Furfooz  skulls  were  discovered  by  Dupont,  1867, 
in  a  cave  near  Furfooz  in  the  Valley  of  the  Lesse,  Bel- 
gium. They  are  described  as  a  highly  developed  race 
of  men  whose  descendants  are  the  broad-headed  races 
now  found  in  Holland  and  Denmark.  Osborn  himself 
quotes  this  opinion  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  ]>. 
485).  Of  course  he  does  not  refer  to  the  Furfooz  skulls 
as  recognized  missing  links.  There  is  nothing  left, 
therefore,  but  the  Grimaldi  skeletons  of  1901,  found 
in  the  Grottes  de  Grimaldi,  near  Mentone,  described  as 
displaying  "a  number  of  resemblances  to  the  African 
negroid  race." 

Hrdlicka  gives  no  description  of  the  Grimaldi  re- 
mains and  enters  into  no  discussion  concerning  them. 
Boule  is  responsible  for  most  of  the  ideas  now  in  cir- 
culation regarding  the  bones  found  in  the  Grimaldi 
Grotto,  which  really  consist  of  two  sets  of  remains — 


80  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

those  belonging  to  the  African  negroid  race  and  those 
belonging  to  the  Cro-Magnon  race. 

Since  both  of  these  races  are  assigned  to  the  Upper 
Palaeolithic,  whereas  the  Neanderthal  race  is  confined 
to  the  Lower  Palaeolithic,  it  follows  that  we  are  far- 
ther away  from  the  missing  link  than  ever,  for  certain- 
ly no  son  could  have  ever  appeared  before  the  birth 
of  his  father.  Consequently,  it  is  not  difficult  to  ex- 
plain Professor  Osborn 's  unscientific  failure  to  be 
specific  when  he  declares  that  of  these  seventeen  dis- 
coveries "some  are  now  recognized  as  missing  links 
between  the  existing  human  species  and  the  anthropoid 
apes." 

The  reason  that  Professor  Osborn  avoids  specific 
mention  of  a  single  one  of  the  seventeen  discoveries 
as  a  missing  link  is  because  there  is  no  missing  link 
among  them.  By  his  careful  avoidance  of  any  sugges- 
tion of  identification  he  provokes  thoughts  too  deep 
for  words.  Whom,  then,  does  he  intend  to  impress 
when  he  says: 

"SOME  OF  THESE  ARE  NOW  RECOGNIZED 
AS  MISSING  LINKS  BETWEEN  THE  EXISTING 
HUMAN  SPECIES  HOMO  SAPIENS  AND  THE 
ANTHROPOID  APES. ' '  Children  constitute  the  vast 
majority  of  the  throngs  who  visit  the  Osborn  exhibit. 
Must  children  be  impressed  with  this  sort  of  science? 


CHAPTER  VI 
A  Blighted  Ancestral  Tree 

A  blighted  ancestral  tree — At  the  end  of  a  sawed-off  branch — The  Rho- 
desia man — Whorls  and  straight  lines. 

Trying  to  unify  his  own  contradictions  with  the  con- 
tradictions of  a  group  of  " authorities' '  selected  by 
him  because  they  would  seem,  without  too  close  inspec- 
tion, to  support  his  own  opinions,  Professor  Osborn 
publishes  the  ancestral  tree  of  the  anthropoid  apes  and 
man  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age,"  p.  54).  He  begins 
with  the  " unknown  ancestral  stock"  of  the  old  world 
primates,  including  man,  leading  on  one  branch  to  the 
small  monkeys  of  Egypt  and  the  Macaques  of  Asia 
and  Europe.  Another  branch  of  this  "unknown  an- 
cestral stock"  became  the  Propliopithecus,  one  of 
whose  children  became  the  orang  of  Asia,  another  the 
gorilla  of  Africa,  a  third  the  chimpanzee  of  Africa,  a 
fourth  the  gibbon  of  Asia  and  a  fifth,  leading  to  the 
"Unknown  Pliocene  ancestors  of  man,"  from  whom 
"in  the  order  of  descent"  are  placed  the  Trinil  Ape- 
Man,  the  Heidelberg  man,  the  Piltdown  man,  the  Nean- 
derthal man,  more  primitive  species,  human  and  pre- 
human, the  Cro-Magnon  and  other  races  and  finally, 
on  top  of  the  tree,  Homo  sapiens,  meaning  you  and  the 
rest  of  us. 

The  materialistic  scientists  would  tell  us  they  have 
no  fault  to  find  with  the  critics  of  Ernst  Haeckel, 
who  object  to  his  scientific  forgeries  and  falsifications. 
That  is  old  stuff,  they  say.    Yet  this  thing,  published 

81 


82  GOD— OR.  GOEILLA 

in  the  name  of  science  as  an  ancestral  tree  of  the  an- 
thropoid apes  and  man,  is  a  1921  contribution  to  man's 
' '  knowledge ' '  concerning  himself.  If  it  is  not  the  same 
old  stuff,  newly  dressed,  what  is  it? 

The  student  who  does  not  examine  with  a  microscope, 
looking  at  that  tree,  would  quickly  conclude  that  the 
Trinil  Ape-Man  came  out  of  a  pure  ape ;  that  the  Hei- 
delberg man,  still  very  much  an  ape,  came  out  of  the 
Trinil  Ape-Man;  that  the  Piltdown  man,  still  very 
gorilla-like,  came  out  of  the  Heidelberg  man ;  that  the 
Neanderthal  man,  with  many  apish  characteristics  still 
clinging  to  his  squat  ferocity,  came  out  of  the  Piltdown 
man;  that  other  pre-human  and  human  primitives 
came  out  of  the  Neanderthal  man ;  that  the  Cro-Mag- 
non and  more  highly  developed  races  came  out  of  these 
primitive  sub-men  and  that  in  turn,  out  of  the  Cro- 
Magnon  cave  man,  who  was  an  improvement  on  all  the 
others,  came  modern  man. 

At  the  End  of  a  Sawed-Off  Branch 

Another  theoretic  tree  ("Men  of  the  Old  Stone 
Age,"  p.  491)  offers  a  sort  of  antidote  to  these  im- 
pressions by  putting  the  Trinil  Ape-Man  on  a  special 
branch  and  ending  him  there  as  an  extinct  species  of 
pre-human  creatures.  The  Heidelberg  man  is  treated 
in  the  same  way  and  ended  abruptly  by  complete  ex- 
tinction just  before  the  races  of  the  old  stone  age  ap- 
pear. Then  comes  another  special  branch  labelled 
"Neanderthal,"  occupying  the  entire  Lower  Palaeo- 
lithic Period  and  ending  exactly  on  the  dividing  line 
between  the  Lower  and  Upper  Palaeolithic.  On  a 
fourth  separate  branch  leading  nowhere,  except  to  ex- 
tinction, is  the  Piltdown  man  who  dies  off  forever  in 
the  exact  middle  of  the  Lower  Palaeolithic.  The  Grim- 
aldi  race  is  omitted  altogether  from  this  theoretic  tree. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  83 

Modern  man  is  represented  by  four  branches  origi- 
nating in  the  Upper  Palaeolithic. 

Certain  it  is,  according  to  the  evidence,  that  in  Pa- 
laeolithic times  there  were  in  Europe  other  races,  not 
Neanderthals,  not  blacks.  Why,  then,  is  so  much  at- 
tention focussed  on  the  Neanderthals?  The  answer,  of 
its  very  nature,  is  harsh  and  biting.  The  Cro-Magnon 
or  "Engis"  type  might  have  belonged  to  a  philosopher. 
Huxley  himself  ("Man's  Place  in  Nature,"  p.  156) 
makes  this  admission.  John  Lubbock,  after  describing 
the  original  Neanderthal  skull,  says  ("Prehistoric 
Times,"  sixth  edition,  New  York,  1910,  p.  317): 
"Even,  however,  in  Palaeolithic  times  Europe  appears 
to  have  been  already  occupied  by  more  than  one  race 
of  man."  Any  serious  student  must  be  struck  by  the 
suppression  of  the  fine,  high,  steep  skulls  which  Hux- 
ley says  "might  have  belonged  to  a  philosopher"  in 
order  that  only  such  skulls  as  are  inferior  in  form  may 
occupy  the  picture.  The  fine  skulls  could  not  by  any 
act  of  violence  be  made  to  support  a  missing-link 
theory.    The  acrobats  of  evolution  must  avoid  them. 

But  the  fine  skulls,  the  philosophers'  skulls,  the 
skulls  that  might  have  belonged  to  any  modern  Euro- 
pean, must  have  some  kind  of  attention.  The  drama- 
tists of  evolution  are  ready.  Instead  of  admitting  that 
the  races  were  contemporaneous,  occupying  Europe  at 
the  same  time,  they  summon  the  Cro-Magnons  (a  little 
later)  to  kill  off  the  Neanderthals.  But  what  ice  re  the 
Cro-Magnons  doing  when  they  ivere  getting  ready  to 
do  the  killing?  They  must  have  been  in  exist  or 
They  couldn't  have  just  come  up  around  the  corner 
from  nowhere.  The  absurdity  of  the  thing  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  make  one  gasp  when  the  word  "science" 
is  used  in  describing  it,  unless  used  in  the  serio-comic 
sense. 

You  are  asked  always  to  visualize  the  Neanderthals 


84  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

as  squatty,  ferocious,  brutish,  heavy-jowled,  low- 
browed, long-armed,  short-limbed,  gorilla-like  creatures 
with  small  brains.  If  you  fail  to  get  such  a  picture  you 
have  no  base  from  which  to  move  upward.  The  small 
brain  is  an  essential.  The  cranial  capacity  must  be 
kept  as  near  to  that  of  the  ape  as  possible  in  order  to 
show  an  evolutionary  progression. 

Hence  the  emphasis  given  to  the  Neanderthal  skulls 
that  will  support  such  emphasis.  Hence  the  evasion  of 
the  Neanderthal  skulls  that  will  not  support  it.  The 
simple  facts  are  that  the  Neanderthal  skulls  manifest 
the  same  variation  in  height  and  capacity  as  the  skulls 
of  living  races,  and  we  are  guilty  of  deceit  when  we 
sort  out  only  that  particular  type  that  will  serve  a 
special  purpose  and  bolster  a  special  theory. 

Listen  to  Professor  G.  F.  Scott  Elliot.  He  says 
("Prehistoric  Man,"  1915,  p.  143)  :  "There  is  some 
variation  in  the  height  and  capacity  of  the  Neander- 
thal skulls.  In  some  of  them  the  capacity  rose  to  1500 
c.c.,  or  even  1600  c.c.  In  others  it  is  not  more  than 
1080  c.c.  (Gibraltar  female).  This  difference  is  not 
greater  than  the  range  between  extreme  cases  of  mod- 
ern peoples."  To  deal  only  with  the  low  end  of  the 
range  between  extreme  cases  would  be  sufficient  to  jus- 
tify the  conclusion  that  the  skull  of  any  carefully  se- 
lected idiot  from  the  detention  pen  at  the  Ellis  Island 
immigrant  station  is  proof  that  all  Europe  is  inhabited 
by  idiots. 

But  the  Neanderthals  were  not  idiots.  Listen  to 
Professor  Arthur  Keith.  He  says  ("The  Human 
Body,"  1910,  p.  248) :  "The  Neanderthal  man  had  a 
very  large,  and  as  we  know  from  his  flint  instruments, 
a  capable  brain."  Also  he  says  (p.  172) :  "The  length 
of  the  Neanderthal  skulls  is  much  above  the  modern 
average. ' ' 

Obviously  neither  authority  has  specialized  on  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  85 

low  end  of  the  range  between  extremes.  On  the  con- 
trary, like  so  many  of  the  other  authorities  heretofore 
quoted,  both  have  analyzed  all  the  Neanderthal  skulls. 
Facts  like  these  provoke  nothing  but  contempt  for  the 
effort  to  submerge  the  truth  under  a  surface  of  care- 
fully fabricated  falsehood. 

There  must  be  an  ancestral  tree,  of  course,  and  the 
Neanderthals  must  grow  down  very  low  and  very  close 
to  the  ape  trunk,  in  pleistocene  soil,  but  again  the  facts 
have  to  be  faced.  Real  men  were  here  even  before  the 
Neanderthals.  The  same  Professor  Arthur  Keith,  who 
clings  none  the  less  desperately  to  the  ape-man  theory, 
says  ("The  Human  Body,"  1910,  p.  249):  "In  the 
pleistocene  we  know  of  the  remains  of  the  Neanderthals 
but  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  man  was  evolved 
before  this  period  dawned." 

Each  one  may  grow  his  own  ancestral  tree.  Each 
one  may  become  his  own  clay  modeller.  Each  one,  de- 
pending entirely  upon  his  skill  in  art,  may  make  his 
own  reconstructions,  but  he  must  forever  ignore  two 
contemporary  races,  particularly  if  one  of  them  is  su- 
perior. He  must  ever  focus  on  the  inferior  as  if  it 
alone  had  existence.  Otherwise  his  series  of  "progres- 
sive" stages  breaks  down  and  his  connecting  links  are 
lost.  He  must  be  discreet,  even  crafty.  Above  all  he 
must  avoid  candor  and  truth  and  abandon  reason. 

Everything  must  begin  with  what  is  described  as 
the  "unknown,"  as  far  as  palaeontology  is  concerned. 
Everything  may  end  according  to  the  formula  of  H.  G. 
Wells,  who  in  his  "Outline  of  History,"  takes  what 
is  unknown,  labels  it  "known,"  and  then  tells  the 
world  what  it  knows  as  a  result  of  this  advanced  scien- 
tific process,  "stripped  of  all  superstition,  mysticism, 
theology  and  other  nonsense"  (sic) ! 

H.  G.  Wells  is  one  of  the  fruits  of  a  state  of  mind 
to  which  this  sort  of  science  must  inevitably  lead.    For 


86  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

want  of  a  better  phrase,  even  though  it  involves  a  para- 
dox, we  must  describe  it  as  "the  blind  staggers  of 
science.' '  That  it  has  appropriated  so  much  self-cer- 
tified dignity  and  has  fooled  so  many  "  educated  "  men 
will  ever  remain  one  of  the  mysteries  of  this  ouija- 
board  age. 

The  reader  who  has  travelled  this  far  through  a  jum- 
ble so  inextricably  confused  that  science  itself  is  unable 
to  unravel  the  tangle,  so  complicated  and  involved  have 
become  the  corrupted  opinions  to  which  these  abuses 
have  led,  knows  all  that  H.  G.  Wells  ever  knew  or  could 
know  concerning  these  palaeontological  specimens. 
Yet  a  consideration  of  the  conclusions  of  Wells,  pre- 
sented with  white  hot  heat  in  the  name  of  stone  cold 
science,  shows  that  " science,"  through  the  betrayal 
of  its  own  high  priests,  has  become  the  plaything  of 
romancers,  spiritists,  novelists  and  mountebanks. 

A  late  instance  of  this  corruption  of  science  took  the 
form  of  a  full  page  in  the  New  York  Sunday  American, 
August  21,  1921,  " explaining  why  baby  can't  possibly 
look  like  papa  or  mamma.  It  is  still  too  close  to  its 
monkey  cousins.' '  According  to  the  "scientific  pros- 
pects" we  shall  soon  enjoy  "well-trained,  gentle-man- 
nered, orderly  household  servants,  monkey  servants." 
They  will  even  work  in  the  fields  and  on  the  farm 
"picking  cotton  and  doing  other  agricultural  labor. 
All  monkeys,  from  the  chimpanzee  down,  are  properly 
to  be  regarded  as  PEOPLE.  They  are  our  cousins." 
Adult  apes  are  quite  human  and  human  infants  are 
very  much  simian.  "Therefore  when  mother  speaks 
of  baby  as  a  'little  monkey'  let  us  realize  that  the  term 
is  more  descriptively  accurate  than  she  knows." 

The  Rhodesia  Man 

At  the  November  meeting  of  the  Zoological  Society, 
London,  1921,  with  Professor  McBride,  F.  R.  S.,  a  vice- 


The  "drawing"  of  the  Rhodesian  Cave  Man's  skull  (at  the  right)  suggests 
a  creature  without  a  forehead.  It  was  published  in  the  London  Chronicle, 
November,  1921,  under  the  following  caption:  "Cave  Man's  skull  :it 
British  Museum.     Believed  to  be  100,000   Years  Old. — Ape-like   Human.1 

You  will  note  that  the  "drawing"  is  well  done  and  that  it  is  designed  to 
emphasize  an  apedike  cranium  with  a  very  low  crown.  Contrast  it  care- 
fully with  the  actual  photograph  (at  the  left)  supplied  by  "Inter- 
national." This  photograph  was  taken  at  the  Broken  Hill  Mine  in 
Northern  Rhodesia,  on  the  exact  spot  where  it  was  discovered  by  W.  E. 
Barren,  a  New  Zealand  engineer,  in  what  is  now  called  the  Bone  <';i\v. 
some  140  feet  below  the  original  top  of  the  hill.  This  cave,  which  ran 
for  a  long  distance  under  the  hill,  was  full  of  animal  bones  but  no  human 
remains  had  been  found  until  the  Rhodesian  Man  was  unearthed. 

The  photograph  shows  the  skull  in  position  supported  by  a  stick  in  the  soil 
before  it  was  removed  and  brought  to  England  by  the  managing  director 
of  the  Broken  Hill  Mine,  Mr.  R.  Macartney.  Had  the  ape-man  drawing 
told  half  as  much  as  the  actual  human  photograph,  the  readers  of  the 
newspapers  would  have  discovered  for  themselves  a  very  considerable 
crown,  a.  very  considerable  forehead  and  altogether  a  very  human,  and 
not   at  all   apedike   skull. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  87 

president  of  the  Society,  in  the  chair,  the  recently  dis- 
covered and  already  famous  Rhodesian  cave  man's 
skull,  christened  Homo  Rhodesiensis  by  Dr.  Arthur 
Smith  Woodward,  F.  R.  S.  (Keeper  of  Geology  at  the 
National  History  Museum),  was  discussed  as  one  of 
the  paradoxes  of  the  ape-man  theory.  The  London 
Times  and  London  Chronicle  announced  that  experts 
had  given  this  "ape-like  human"  an  age  of  100,000 
years.  Neither  paper  named  the  experts.  The  British 
public  was  merely  informed  that  it  may  now  be  certain 
of  its  monkey  origin. 

"It  is  the  largest  human  mouth  ever  seen,"  said  Dr. 
"Woodward,  "and  the  fact  that  there  are  several  de- 
cayed teeth  knocks  the  bottom  out  of  the  theory  that 
such  disease  is  a  product  of  civilization.  We  have  the 
shin  and  thigh  bones  and  from  these  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  this  type  of  man  walked  erect,  a  deduction 
which  is  confirmed  by  the  articulation  of  the  back-bone. 
My  idea  is  that  Homo  Rhodesiensis  existed  at  a  later 
date  than  Pithecanthropus  (the  ape-man  discovered  in 
Java),  or  even  the  Neanderthal  Man,  although  the  large 
and  heavy  face  is  more  simian  in  appearance  than  the 
latter.  Until  wre  have  a  cast  of  the  brain  cavitv  and 
can  deduce  what  kind  of  brain  he  had,  it  is  difficult  to 
place  the  type.  We  cannot,  of  course,  go  by  the  size 
for  the  Neanderthal  Man  had  a  larger  brain  cavity 
than  some  of  us  at  the  present  day.  It  is  quality,  not 
quantity,  which  counts. 

"Homo  Rhodesiensis  is  decidedly  a  new  link  in  the 
chain  of  evolution  and  he  may  prove  to  be  the  next 
grade  after  the  Neanderthal  Man  in  the  ascending 
series." 

Holding  "the  mysterious  orange-colored  skull'  in 
his  hand,  Dr.  Woodward  emphasized  the  "incongruous 
combination  of  the  brain  case  and  face. ' '  He  suggested 
that  the  arrangement  gave  the  skull  the  appearance  of 


88  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

an  ape  when  one  looked  at  it  from  the  front,  but  ad- 
mitted that  "the  brain  case,  however,  indicates  a  brain 
of  about  the  average  size  of  the  human  brain,  while  the 
case  itself  is  only  of  about  normal  thickness.,,  There 
was  no  ape-like  massiveness  of  bone  formation,  nor 
any  thing  suggesting  it. 

"The  bony  ridges  of  the  brows,"  continued  Dr. 
Woodward,  t '  are  very  big  compared  with  anything  we 
have  seen  in  early  man  before  and  their  extension  to 
the  side  is  very  marked,  though  the  width  is  not  as 
great  as  in  the  case  of  the  gorilla.  The  Pithecanthropus 
from  Java  cannot,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  very  close 
to  the  Rhodesian  skull,  which  is  much  nearer  to  the 
Neanderthal  skull.,, 

Here  again,  with  no  reference  to  the  true  history  of 
Pithecanthropus,  this  creature  is  resurrected  and  ex- 
hibited not  as  a  supposition  and  an  inference,  but  as 
an  established  fact.  All  references  made  to  him  by  the 
scientists  in  the  London  newspapers  were  made  as  if 
the  Java  creature  was  a  thing  of  reality  instead  of  an 
hypothesis,  the  supporting  fragments  of  which  are  hid- 
den even  from  the  most  eminent  of  scientists,  as  well 
as  from  the  gaze  of  the  plain  people. 

Dr.  Woodward,  despite  the  simian  insinuations  of  his 
remarks,  admitted  while  referring  to  the  "immense 
size  of  the  palate' '  of  the  Rhodesian  skull,  that  "never- 
theless it  is  entirely  human  and  beautifully  domed — 
comparable  with  what  we  find  in  modern  men,  even 
singers.  The  symmetry  is  beautiful  and  the  nature  of 
the  bones  perfect.  There  is  nothing  to  suggest  ab- 
normality. This  impression  is  confirmed  by  a  piece  of 
upper  jaw  of  a  second  individual  found  with  the  skull, 
with  teeth  and  palate  exactly  like  the  first.  There  was 
no  trace,  however,  of  disease. 

"As  to  the  relation  of  this  race  (sic)  to  fossil  men 
(sic)  already  known  (sic)  it  is  impossible, ' '  said  Dr. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  89 

Woodward,  "to  say  anything  definite.  But  as  far  as 
I  can  judge  at  present,  the  Rhodesian  skull  is  that  of  a 
later  man  than  the  Neanderthal  Man."  How  then 
could  it  have  been  100,000  years  old! 

Professor  Elliot  Smith  admitted  that  "the  specimens 
under  consideration  present  some  very  remarkable 
paradoxes.  The  limb  bones  of  the  Rhodesian  Alan  are 
apparently  very  much  straighter  and  longer  than  the 
limb  bones  of  the  Neanderthal  Man  and  altogether 
much  more  like  the  modern  man. 

"Judged  by  the  limbs  alone,  we  would  assume  that 
we  are  dealing  with  a  much  more  recent  type  than  the 
Neanderthal  Man,  but  judging  by  the  face  we  would 
imagine  we  are  dealing  with  a  much  older  type.  As  to 
the  sex  of  the  Rhodesian  skull  there  is  the  suggestion 
that  it  belonged  to  a  woman  in  the  prime  of  life.  The 
sutures  suggest  that  she  was  probably  less  than  thirty 
years  of  age.  When  the  face  was  clothed  with  flesh  I 
think  it  might  have  had  widely-splayed  nostrils  like 
the  gorilla  and  in  this  respect  it  might  have  been  less 
like  a  modern  human  being  than  might  appear  from 
the  skull." 

Perhaps  it  looked  very  much  like  a  gorilla  indeed. 
Obviously  that  is  what  such  comments  would  have  the 
people  think  it  looked  like.  Obviously  there  will  be  a 
tempest  in  the  scientific  tea-pot  over  this  calumniated 
packet  of  bones  from  the  Rhodesia  Broken  Hill  Mine 
now  languishing  in  the  British  Natural  History 
Museum. 

Rhodesia,  named  after  Cecil  Rhodes,  is  a  British 
possession  in  South  Central  Africa,  lying  within  the 
tropics.  Among  its  animals  are  the  elephant,  hippo- 
potamus, rhinoceros,  giraffe,  zebra,  and  various 
baboons  and  apes.  It  also  boasts  of  the  lion,  leopard, 
cheetah,  wolf,  jackal,  python,  puff-adder,  cobra,  croco- 
dile, ostrich,  etc. 


90  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  natives  of  Rhodesia  belong  to  the  Bantu-Negro 
stock.  It  was  once  the  fashion  to  refer  to  the  "Ruined 
Cities"  of  Rhodesia  which  popular  writers  ascribed  to 
a  remote  antiquity,  identifying  their  founders  with  the 
subjects  of  King  Solomon  and  the  Queen  of  Sheba. 
Even  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  eleventh  edition, 
admits  that  "positive  archaeological  evidence  demon- 
strates that  the  ' Great  Zimbabwe'  itself,  the  most  fa- 
mous and  the  most  imposing  of  the  misnamed  '  Ruined 
Cities,'  was  not  built  before  medieval  times,  and  that 
the  earliest  date  which  can  be  assigned  to  any  of  the 
sites  explored  is  subsequent  to  the  eleventh  century, 
A.D." 

All  the  evidence  indicates  that  this  entire  section 
of  the  world  was  once  inhabited  by  black  men,  not 
white,  and  it  may  be  reasonably  inferred  therefore 
that  the  skull  of  the  Rhodesian  Cave  Man  is  the  skull 
of  a  black. 

The  Mid-Week  Pictorial,  published  by  the  New  York 
Times,  December  15,  1921,  devotes  an  entire  page  to 
this  new  anthropological  "Find."  "Especially  inter- 
esting," says  the  article,  "is  the  probability  that  the 
man  of  the  Broken  Hill  skull  stood  erect.  This  is 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  with  the  Rhodesian  skull 
were  found  a  complete  shin-bone  and  two  ends  of  a 
thigh  bone  which  are  exactly  like  those  of  modern  man, 
and  indicated  that  the  possessor  stood  erect." 

One  is  tempted  to  add,  "Especially  interesting  is  the 
probability  that  Julius  Caesar  stood  erect.  This  is 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  was  walking  with  Mark 
Antony  when  the  sooth-sayer  cried  out,  'Beware  the 
Ides  of  March!'  He  could  not  have  walked  without 
legs.  Without  shin-bone  and  thigh-bone  he  could  have 
had  no  legs.  As  the  historicity  of  his  ability  to  walk 
seems  to  have  been  satisfactorily  established,  there  is 
some  probability  that  when  he  walked  at  all  he  walked 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Natural  walking  posture  of  Gorilla.  Haeckel 
placed  the  creature  in  an  upright  unnat- 
ural position  to  make  it  "resemble"  man. 
Note  the  thumb  on  the  rear  hand.  Note 
also  that  the  creature  walks  on  the  knuckles, 
or  rather  on  the  eullosities  of  the  knuckles 
of  the  forehand.  Compare  with  bear  stand- 
ing erect.  Draw  such  inferences  as  you 
will  from  the  absurd  contrast.     Formulate 

a  theory  of  your  own.     Tt  will  be  as  g 1 

as  any* of  the   already   abandoned   ones. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  91 

erect.  The  absurdity  of  these  anthropological  obser- 
vations is  so  obvious  and  so  transparent  that  one  sees 
through  them  a  state  of  mind  which  seemingly  desires 
to  believe  that  there  really  were  half-human  half- 
simian  animals  who  walked  on  all  fours  before  walking 
erect;  hence  the  weird  exclamation,  "Especially  inter- 
esting is  the  probability  that  the  man  of  the  Broken 
Hill  skull  stood  erect. ' ' 

Does  anybody  doubt  that  he  did? 

Whokls  and  Straight  Lines 

Rare  is  the  student  who  makes  an  intensive  study  of 
the  theory  of  evolution,  yet  in  the  United  States  alone 
fifty  thousand  "educated"  men  and  women,  including 
the  intelligencia,  teachers,  editors  and  other  profession- 
als who  assist  in  the  formation  of  public  opinion,  have 
read  "Outlines  of  History' '  by  H.  G.  Wells,  many  of 
them  appropriating  its  "scientific"  sophistries  and 
passing  them  on  as  further  "confirmation"  of  the  "un- 
assailable status  of  Darwinism." 

As  if  Darwinism  were  a  science  and  not  a  theory, 
and  as  if  the  Haeckel  deformity  of  Darwinism  wore  an 
historical  fact  instead  of  a  malignant  mutilation  of 
truth,  Wells  reserves  on  his  train  of  perversions  a 
drawing  room  for  the  monkey  from  which  he  says  he 
descended.  He  failed,  however,  to  consult  with  Ray- 
mond L.  Ditmars,  curator  of  mammals  and  reptiles  of 
the  Zoological  Gardens,  Bronx  Park,  New  York  City. 
Ditmars  is  a  firm  believer  in  the  theory  that  "our  apish 
grandsires  chattered  love  amid  the  cocoanut  branches 
of  the  unexplored  jungles  long  before  Adam  ever  lost 
his  spare-rib  or  Paris  rolled  the  little  red  apple."  In 
an  article  under  a  four-column  caption  illustrated  with 
half-tone  photographs  of  chimpanzees  published  Au- 
gust 28, 1921,  in  the  New  York  Even  lay  Telegram,  Sun- 


92  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

day,  Ditmars  declares:  "When  the  evasive  missing 
link  is  eventually  found  he  will  be  discovered  tightly 
grasping  the  paw  of  his  mate  and  chattering  such  mon- 
key gibberish  in  her  ears  as  ' Don't  be  afraid.  We're 
their  ancestors,  you  know.'  "  The  article  goes  on  to 
announce  that  he  is  making  a  moving  picture,  20,000 
feet  of  reel,  to  convince  the  rankest  unbeliever  that  the 
anthropoid  apes  are  our  real  ancestors  and  that  these 
pictures  are  being  made  while  an  expedition,  headed 
by  Roy  Andrews,  is  pushing  into  Thibet  with  seventy- 
five  camels,  four  motor  trucks  and  four  Handley-Page 
airplanes  in  search  of  the  missing  link,  which  Dr.  An- 
drews expects  to  find  in  the  form  of  anthropoid  apes  a 
thousand  years  advanced  in  evolution  over  the  type  of 
ape  we  see  in  captivity.  ' '  This, ' '  according  to  Ditmars, 
"is  the  highbrow  ape;  it  stands  erect,  supposedly,  and 
displays  all  the  characteristics  of  man.  He  will  be 
brought  back  to  New  York  with  sufficient  of  his  brothers 
and  sisters  to  permit  a  searching  investigation  as  to 
his  relation  to  humans." 

We  must  wait  for  that  "searching"  investigation. 
We  must  wait  patiently  for  that  missing  link  as  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  was  afraid  we  would  be  compelled  to 
when  more  than  sixty  years  ago  ("Antiquity  of  Man," 
p.  499)  he  wrote:  "At  present  we  must  be  content  to 
wait  patiently,  and  not  to  allow  our  judgment  to  be 
influenced  by  the  want  of  evidence.  ...  As  we  meet 
with  extinct  kangaroos  and  wombats  in  Australia,  ex- 
tinct llamas  and  sloths  in  South  America,  so  in  equa- 
torial Africa,  and  in  certain  islands  of  the  East  Indian 
Archipelago,  may  we  hope  to  meet  hereafter  with  lost 
types  of  the  anthropoid  Primates,  allied  to  the  gorilla, 
chimpanzee  and  orang-outang." 

Perhaps,  even  after  the  return  of  the  Andrews  ex- 
pedition, we  shall  have  to  continue  our  waiting.  But 
in  the  meantime  let  us  not  forget  that  early  in  1921  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  93 

same  Ditmars,  at  the  request  of  Professor  William  K. 
Gregory,  curator  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History,  acting  for  the  Galton  Society  of  Washington, 
D.  C,  collected  the  finger-prints  of  monkeys  for  com- 
parison with  the  finger-prints  of  men.  The  results 
have  added  to  the  bewilderment,  embarrassment  and 
confusion  of  the  monkey  evolutionists.  The  prints 
show  that  the  human  hand  is  marked  on  the  tips  of  the 
fingers  and  on  the  tips  of  the  thumbs,  as  every  one 
knows,  with  lines  arranged  in  whorls.  The  arrange- 
ment with  respect  to  the  monkey  hand,  as  everyone 
does  not  know,  is  just  the  reverse. 

Monkey  finger-tips  are  marked  in  parallel  lines  and 
the  monkey  whorls,  literally  gorgeous  in  design,  when 
compared  with  the  very  much  simpler  and  less  con- 
spicuous human  whorls,  are  found  not  on  the  tips  of 
the  fingers  where  the  ape-man  evolutionist  would  have 
been  delighted  to  find  them,  but  rather  on  the  palms  of 
the  hand  where,  as  far  as  the  evolutionist  is  concerned, 
they  have  no  business  at  all. 

This  upside-down  arrangement  has  caused  something 
of  a  panic  in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  for,  disquiet- 
ing as  it  is  at  first  sight  to  the  monkey  evolutionist,  it 
becomes  more  disquieting  as  its  many  implications  are 
disclosed.  On  the  human  hand  the  soft  fleshy  mounts 
at  the  base  of  the  fingers  are  marked  with  parallel 
lines.  The  exact  opposite  of  this  is  characteristic  of 
the  corresponding  part  of  the  monkey  hand,  upon 
which  in  dome-like  formation  are  to  be  found  elaborate 
sunbursts  of  whorls.  Ditmars  has  informed  the  writer 
that  the  finger-prints  have  convinced  Professor  ( )sborn 
that  he  has  been  correct  from  the  beginning  in  his  be- 
lief that  man  has  not  descended  from  any  of  the  living 
apes,  a  fact  which  makes  it  all  the  more  necessary  thai 
the  Andrews  expedition  shall  discover  some  new  kind 
of  monkey  hitherto  unknown. 


94  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

With  the  divulgence  of  these  seemingly  trivial  but 
none  the  less  extraordinary  differences  we  are  remind- 
ed that  criminologists  establish  identity  on  the  basis 
of  the  whorls  on  the  tips  of  the  human  fingers,  using 
especially  the  whorls  on  the  tip  of  the  thumb.  It  is 
well  for  Edgar  Allan  Poe  that  he  attempted  to  solve 
no  murder  mystery  through  the  thumb-print  of  a  great 
ape.  The  story  would  have  been  spoiled  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  fact  that  for  purposes  of  identification 
monkey  finger-prints  are  useless. 

Should  a  crime  wave  break  out  among  monkeys  the 
monkey  police  would  have  to  make  prints  of  the 
mounts,  not  of  the  tips.  It  must  not  be  assumed  that 
monkeys  are  any  less  jealous  of  the  distinctiveness  of 
their  identity  than  man,  for  it  now  appears,  as  is  the 
case  with  man,  that  there  are  no  two  monkeys  with 
the  same  whorl  markings. 

The  curious  shifting  of  the  whorls  through  evolu- 
tionary processes  from  mount  to  tip  and  from  tip  to 
mount  should  have  been  followed  by  other  shifts  than 
those  now  noted  for  the  first  time  in  the  matter  of 
parallel  lines  and  whorls.  In  evolutionary  harmony 
with  these  radical  shifts  why  should  the  monkey's  eyes 
not  be  found  in  the  back  of  his  head  ?  Why  should  his 
tail  not  protrude  like  a  beard  from  his  chin?  Why 
should  his  feet  not  be  where  his  hands  are,  and  vice 
versa,  though  not  in  the  fashion  of  Mr.  Barnum's  mule, 
whose  tail  was  where  his  head  should  have  been — in 
the  feed-bag? 

Why  the  monkey's  stomach  should  have  remained  at 
anchor  while  his  whorls  were  searching  about  for  a 
change  of  scene  Mr.  Wells  and  the  professors  wTho  have 
inspired  him  will  have  to  make  clear.  Mr.  Barnum 
didn't,  and  Mr.  Ditmars,  who  waits  with  eager  expecta- 
tion, is  perplexed  beyond  expression;  all  of  which 
brings  us  to  the  difference  between  futile  enthusiasm 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  95 

on  the  one  hand  and  changeless  truth  on  the  other. 

The  difference  between  the  average  layman  to  whom 
"Wells  and  his  brilliancy  appeal  and  the  scientist  who 
deals  not  with  fancy,  but  with  fact,  is  the  difference 
between  futile  enthusiasm  and  changeless  truth.  The 
layman  talks  about  evolution  as  if  it  were  an  estab- 
lished historical  fact;  the  scientist  confesses  that  to 
science,  unaided  by  philosophy,  the  origin  of  life  is  un- 
known, and  that  the  origin  of  the  main  organic  types 
and  their  principal  divisions  are  to  science  similarly 
unknown. 

The  layman  accepts  without  challenge  the  shallow 
plausibilities  tendered  him  by  popular  writers.  Thus 
he  clutters  his  mind  with  the  doctrine  of  an  ascending 
evolution  of  organic  forms,  whereas  the  scientist  ad- 
mits there  is  no  evidence  in  favor  of  any  such  ascend- 
ing evolution. 

The  layman  of  materialistic  tendency  adopts  the 
ready-made  conviction  that  man  originated  in  the  mon- 
key, whereas  the  scientist  knows  and  admits  there  is 
no  trace  of  even  a  merely  probable  argument  in  favor 
of  the  monkey-origin  of  man.  He  knows  that  the 
earliest  human  fossils  and  the  most  ancient  traces  of 
culture  refer  to  a  true  Homo  sapiens  as  we  know  him 
today,  with  the  whorls  on  his  fingertips  and  the  straight 
lines  on  his  mounts. 

The  scientist  also  knows,  and  this  is  most  important 
to  the  student  of  evolution,  that  changes  extending  be- 
yond the  range  of  normal  variation  observed  in  the 
human  species  have  not  been  demonstrated  either  ex- 
perimentally or  historically. 

The  layman  talks  about  Darwin's  theory  of  natural 
selection  as  something  positive ;  the  scientist  describes 
it  as  a  negative  factor  only,  and  actually  dismisses  it 
altogether. 


CHAPTER  VII 

" Theologians ' '  versus  " Scientists' 9 

"Theologians"  versus  "scientists" — Pasteur  and   God — Haeckel,  Dar- 
win and  the  critics. 

That  the  attitude  of  the  average  layman  toward  the 
whole  subject  of  evolution  is  the  end-product  of  the 
influences  operating  upon  him  as  the  result  of  scien- 
tific frauds  is  easily  demonstrated.  In  January,  Feb- 
ruary, May  and  June,  1921,  the  New  York  Globe  pub- 
lished numerous  papers  by  the  writer  dealing  with 
evolutionary  facts  and  fancies  as  developed  by  the  fore- 
most scientists  of  Europe  and  America.  Scores  of 
laymen  wrote  the  editor  protesting  vehemently  against 
the  writer's  exposure  of  a  subject  which  they  looked 
upon  as  sacrosanct.  There  was  a  curious  unanimity 
of  criticism  to  the  effect  that  all  the  opponents  of  the 
theory  of  the  monkey-origin  of  man  have  been  theolo- 
gians, not  scientists. 

They  were  unfamiliar  with  the  fact  that  practically 
all  of  the  scientists  quoted  here,  with  possibly  three 
exceptions,  have  never  been  conspicuously  identified 
with  any  religious  sect  and  are,  for  the  most  part,  as 
far  as  theology  is  concerned,  agnostics  or  indifferent- 
ists. 

Oddly  enough,  though  they  were  unfamiliar  with  the 
truth,  Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn  has  dedicated 
his  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age"  to  Abbe  Henri  Breuil. 
They  had  not  heard  of  the  law  of  Mendel,  growing  out 
of  the  experiments  conducted  on  more  than  ten  thou- 

96 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  97 

sand  plants  by  Gregor  Mendel,  a  theologian,  an  Au- 
gustinian  monk,  whose  work  has  been  carried  on  not 
by  theologians  but  by  scientists  such  as  de  Vries,  Cor- 
rens,  Morgan,  Tschermak,  Bateson,  etc.,  who  refer  to 
it  as  "Mendelism,  the  science  of  genetics." 

They  did  not  know  that  among  Europe's  foremost 
biologists,  and  certainly  Europe's  foremost  authority 
on  insects  is  Father  Erich  Wasmann,  whose  works  on 
science,  not  on  theology,  are  in  all  the  scientific  libraries 
of  the  world. 

They  declared  with  emphasis  that  "the  specialists 
in  biology  are  all  agreed  among  themselves  upon  the 
subject"  and  pointed  to  the  fact  that  "Mr.  Wells  scoffs 
at  the  Mosaic  story  of  creation,"  although  it  cannot 
be  too  strongly  stressed  that  the  biological  idea  of 
species  has  nothing  whatever  in  common  with  the  scrip- 
tural narrative  of  the  origin  of  life.  The  Mosaic  ac- 
count of  creation  signifies  nothing  more  than  that  all 
organisms  owe  their  existence  to  the  Creator  of  the 
world.  Its  astonishing  accordance,  in  chronological 
sequence,  with  modern  science  will  be  emphasized  fur- 
ther on. 

They  had  not  heard  of  the  scientific  work  of  B.  S. 
Shattock,  L.  S.  Dudgeon  and  Sir  James  Dewar,  not 
theologians  but  scientists,  whose  extraordinary  dem- 
onstrations have  smashed  the  preposterous  theory  of 
interplanetary  migration  as  the  starting  point  of  bi- 
ology, just  as  Louis  Pasteur,  the  foremost  scientist  of 
modern  times,  smashed  the  equally  preposterous  the- 
ory of  spontaneous  generation. 

They  were  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic 
narrative  does  not  speak  of  the  HOW,  though  it  is  the 
fashion  among  certain  "educated"  men  to  assail  the 
scriptures  as  if  Moses  were  in  conflict  with  natural 
science,  an  oddity  of  belief  that  here,  in  its  proper 
place,  will  be  disclosed  as  doubly  odd. 


98  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

One  indignant  protest  referred  triumphantly  to  the 
declaration  made  by  Mr.  Henry  Ford,  of  automobile 
fame,  to  Mr.  Wilbur  Forrest  of  the  New  York  Tribune, 
when  the  manufacturer  of  the  useful  little  jitney  that 
bears  his  name  said :  " It's  a  simple  matter  to  take  the 
grains  the  cow  eats  and  make  them  into  milk  superior 
to  the  natural  article.  The  cow  is  the  crudest  machine 
in  the  world.' ' 

Pasteur  and  God 

The  writer  once  heard  a  veterinarian  of  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  make  a  somewhat 
similar  statement  on  the  killing-bed  of  one  of  Swift 
and  Company's  slaughter-houses  at  Kearny,  New  Jer- 
sey. ' '  I  could  make  a  better  cow  than  God  ever  made, ' ' 
he  insisted.  Perhaps  he  was  right,  but  like  the  scien- 
tists whose  inventions  have  been  exposed  here,  the  only 
proof  he  could  offer  in  support  of  his  assertion  was 
the  assertion  itself. 

Henry  Ford  doubtless  has  his  own  views  of  life  and 
they  doubtless  mean  much  to  the  proponents  of  evolu- 
tion when  he  says:  "Our  laboratories  have  already 
demonstrated  that  cow's  milk  can  be  done  away  with 
and  the  elements  of  milk  can  be  manufactured  as  a 
scientific  food  by  machines  far  cleaner  than  cows." 

The  writer  has  seen  "scientific"  milk  made  of  the 
soja  bean.  The  writer  has  also  seen  artificial  honey 
made  on  a  "scientific"  formula.  The  former  kills 
babies:  the  latter  kills  bees.  Henry  Ford,  the  biolo- 
gist, or  Henry  Ford,  the  bio-chemist,  or  Henry  Ford, 
the  metabolist,  perhaps  has  not  yet  learned  that  science 
misses  the  essence  of  life's  formula  which  the  scrip- 
tures nowhere  attempt  to  reveal  and  that  this  essence 
has  ever  eluded  the  scientist  who  dabbles  with  syn- 
thetics. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  99 

A  synthetic  cow  may  be  quite  as  possible  as  a  purple 
cow. 

"I  never  saw  a  purple  cow, 
I  never  hope  to  see  one, 
But  I  will  tell  you  anyhow 
I'd  rather  see  than  be  one." 

But — synthetic  wintergreen  when  prescribed  by  the 
physician  does  not  conduct  itself,  for  some  mysterious 
reason,  in  the  human  body,  as  does  natural  winter- 
green,  although  the  chemical  symbols  of  both,  as  far 
as  science  is  concerned,  are  identical. 

Science  can  assemble  every  element  known  to  exist 
in  the  grain  of  wheat — proteins,  nucleo-proteins,  leci- 
thins, phosphotides,  carbo-hydrates,  fats,  colloids  the 
sulphur,  phosphorus,  iodine,  chlorine  and  fluorine  salts 
of  iron,  potassium,  calcium,  magnesium,  manganese, 
sodium,  silicon,  including  the  extraordinary  substances 
known  as  vitamines,  but  science  can't  make  the  com- 
bination sprout  in  the  ground. 

The  influence  of  evolution  on  nutrition,  by  reason 
of  its  synthetic-chemic  standards,  rejecting  plan,  pur- 
pose and  providence,  has  already  been  disastrous  in 
its  effects  upon  civilization.    See  "Science  of  Eating,' 
1920,  by  the  writer. 

To  men  who  have  not  brooded  over  such  facts,  which 
have  nothing  of  theory  or  opinion  in  them,  Pasteur  is 
indeed  a  stumbling  block,  for  although  regarded  by 
scientists  themselves  as  the  crowning  glory  of  scien- 
tific achievement,  he  held  views  scorned  by  the  anti- 
theologian  who  takes  refuge  in  science  at  every  mention 
of  the  Creator. 

"These  are  the  living  springs  of  great  thoughts  and 
great  actions,"  said  Pasteur.  "Everything  grows 
clear  in  the  reflection  from  the  Infinite.  The  more  I 
know  the  more  nearly  is  my  faith  that  of  the  Breton 


100  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

peasant.  If  I  could  know  all  I  would  have  the  faith 
of  a  Breton  peasant  woman.  Happy  the  man  who 
bears  with  him  a  divinity,  an  ideal  of  beauty  and  obeys 
it ;  an  ideal  of  art,  an  ideal  of  science,  an  ideal  of  coun- 
try, an  ideal  of  the  virtues  of  the  gospel." 

Haeckel,  Darwin  and  the  Critics 

Many  of  the  critics  of  the  writer's  papers  as  pub- 
lished in  the  New  York  Globe  justified  their  objections 
by  appealing  to  "Darwinism,"  and  by  reminding  the 
editor  who  had  offended  the  public  by  giving  space  to 
the  writer's  "expressions  of  assininity"  that  Darwin 
was  an  avowed  atheist. 

They  did  not  know  that  the  term  "Darwinism"  as 
popularly  misrepresented  by  Haeckel  is  not  the  theory 
of  evolution,  but  rather  the  theory  of  natural  selection. 
Darwinism  does  not  mean  that  man  descended  from  an 
ape.  It  means  that  animals,  under  certain  conditions, 
accommodate  themselves  better  than  others  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  their  life,  by  reason  of  which  they  tri- 
umph in  the  struggle  for  existence  while  the  others 
are  wiped  out,  so  that  the  victors  eventually  transmit 
their  special  qualities  to  their  descendants,  and  by  such 
transmission  these  qualities  become  more  and  more 
prominent  until  a  new  variety,  a  new  race,  a  new  spe- 
cies has  been  developed. 

These  critics  did  not  know  that  under  the  theory  of 
natural  selection  the  blood-red  robber-ant  ought  not 
to  make  the  mistake  of  selecting  its  worst  enemy,  the 
lomechusa,  as  a  guest  to  live  with,  because  in  doing  so 
it  follows  an  instinct  that  leads  to  the  destruction,  not 
to  the  perpetuation  of  its  own  species.  If  the  blood- 
red  robber-ant  selected  a  guest  that  would  prove  harm- 
ful from  the  moment  when  it  deposited  its  larvae  to 
be  brought  up  in  its  own  nest  for  the  purpose  of  wip- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  101 

ing  out  its  own  offspring,  its  idea  of  the  theory  of 
natural  selection  must  have  been  the  idea  of  suicide. 

These  critics  didn't  know  that  such  stumbling  blocks 
only  served  to  caution  Haeckel  when  he  spoke  to  sci- 
entific men  as  distinguished  from  lay  audiences.  They 
didn't  know  that  Haeckel  hated  a  Creator  and  said  so, 
describing  Him  as  "a  gaseous  vertebrate."  They 
didn't  know  that  for  forty  years  Haeckel  consciously 
and  deliberately  confused  Darwinism  with  the  theory 
of  man's  ape-origin. 

They  didn't  know  that  in  his  address  on  "Monism 
as  a  Bond  of  Union  between  Religion  and  Science' 
Haeckel  explained  that  his  reason  for  this  was  because 
Darwin's  theory  of  natural  selection  supplied  him  with 
the  only  possible  means  of  explaining  orderly  action 
in  nature  without  including  a  designing  or  ordering 
Creator. 

They  didn't  know  that  Haeckel  later  refused  to  dis- 
cuss the  theory  of  natural  selection  for  the  reason  that 
he  knew  if  he  did  not  limit  Darwinism  to  that  theory 
he  would  have  to  let  the  name  go  altogether. 

They  didn't  know  that  Haeckel  had  already  done  the 
damage  by  starting  the  name  Darwinism  on  its  crooked 
course,  so  that  the  word  is  still  commonly  used  as  sig- 
nifying the  theory  of  the  evolution  of  man  from  an 
ape,  and  that  men's  ideas,  including  the  ideas  of  Wells, 
continue  to  be  confused  by  it. 

They  didn't  know  that  Darwin  was  not  only  not  an 
atheist,  but  that  he  was  not  a  Creator-hater,  even 
though  his  definition  of  conscience  carried  him  very 
close  to  agnosticism.    Haeckel  did  know  this. 

At  the  very  end  of  Darwin's  "The  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies," sixth  and  last  English  edition,  1888,  volume  J, 
p.  305,  and  repeated  unchanged  in  the  American  L920 
edition,  he  said:  "There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of 
life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally 


102  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one." 
Darwin  expressly  stated  that  there  was  no  evidence  to 
compel  the  intellect  to  admit  the  evolutionary  change 
of  even  one  single  species  into  another.  In  i  i  The  Life 
and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,"  edited  by  his  son, 
Francis  Darwin,  volume  1,  p.  210,  is  the  famous  letter 
written  to  Bentham,  which  most  people  never  read  but 
in  which  Darwin  emphatically  declares:  "When  we 
descend  to  details  WE  CAN  PROVE  THAT  NOT 
ONE  SPECIES  HAS  CHANGED." 

On  the  following  page  he  says :  "I,  for  one,  can  con- 
scientiously declare  that  I  never  feel  surprised  at  any 
one  sticking  to  the  belief  in  immutability." 

On  page  274  he  says:  "In  my  most  extreme  fluc- 
tuations I  have  never  been  an  atheist  in  the  sense  of 
denying  the  existence  of  God. ' '  If  any  more  evidence 
is  needed  to  whom  shall  we  go  for  it  ?  Darwin  himself 
has  spoken. 

Haeckel  was  a  specialist  in  fraud  and  forgeries,  and 
though  ignominiously  exposed  by  the  forced  confes- 
sion of  his  own  laboratory  assistant,  Dr.  Schmidt-Jena, 
and  by  many  others,  Mimes  Marshall,  John  Gerard, 
Erich  Wasmann,  Anton  His,  Keibel,  Rutimeyer,  Brass, 
etc.,  his  influence  still  dominates  popular  writers  on 
evolution,  who  seemingly  have  never  read  the  rebuke 
administered  to  him  by  Darwin  himself,  when  the  lat- 
ter wrote:  "Your  boldness  makes  me  tremble."  See 
letters  edited  by  his  son,  Francis. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
Hybrids,  Haeckel  and  Confusion 

Hybrids  abhorred  by  nature — Haeckel 's  biogenetic  principle — Confound- 
ing of  Species — From  egg  to  adult — Fish  gills  and  human  ear — 
"Absolutely  and  radically  false." 

Even  before  Darwinism  was  abandoned  by  the  mod- 
ern scientist  it  was  strictly  scientific  to  believe  that 
cats  are  always  cats,  whatever  the  variety,  and  that 
though  they  differ  in  many  and  wonderful  characteris- 
tics within  the  limit  of  cat  variation,  they  nevertheless 
remain  in  all  their  variations  just  what  they  are — cats. 
They  never  mate  with  dogs,  and  there  are  no  half -dog 
half-cat  animals  even  in  the  dime  museums. 

Whatever  the  variety,  dogs  always  remain  dogs, 
horses  always  remain  horses,  jackasses  always  remain 
jackasses,  and  mules,  like  every  other  hybrid  repug- 
nant to  nature,  are  cut  off  without  offspring.  The 
evidences  of  the  senses  suggest  a  purpose  and  a  plan 
to  prevent  the  confounding  of  species,  easily  discern- 
ible to  every  eye. 

The  layman  has  observed  that  the  bluefish  does  not 
fertilize  the  eggs  of  the  salmon ;  that  there  is  no  hybrid 
between  the  butterfish  and  the  porgy;  that  the  fluke 
and  the  flounder,  although  almost  identical,  do  not  fer- 
tilize each  other's  spawn;  that  there  is  no  offspring 
between  the  striped  bass  and  the  sea  bass,  between  the 
mackerel  and  the  dogfish. 

No  fisherman  ever  caught  two  mackerel  marked  with 
the  same  mottled  stripes,  yet  all  mackerel  are  mack- 

103 


104  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

erel.  They  are  never  half  mackerel,  half  dogfish.  Pene- 
trability of  the  ovum  by  the  sperm,  timing  and  a  score 
of  other  factors  are  bound  up  in  this  phenomenon  of 
the  integrity  of  the  species. 

All  lavmen  know  that  whereas  there  are  no  two 
blades  of  grass  alike,  all  grass  is  grass  within  the  strict- 
ly defined  limits  of  variation  and  that  regardless  of  the 
variety,  although  no  two  oak  leaves  are  alike,  oak 
leaves  are  always  oak  leaves  and  cannot  be  confound- 
ed with  maple  leaves.  There  are  many  varieties  of 
wheat  but  wheat  is  never  rye. 

Artificial  hybrids  can  be  forced  under  many  circum- 
stances for  a  single  generation,  but  they  do  not  per- 
petuate themselves  because  nature,  though  loving  evo- 
lutionary processes  according  to  the  evolutionist,  will 
have  none  of  such  confounding  of  her  main  types. 

Proprietors  of  circuses  have  tried,  for  commercial 
reasons,  to  produce  freaks  but  they  cannot  get  a  mix- 
ture of  the  camel  and  giraffe,  of  the  hyena  and  the 
panther,  of  the  lion  and  the  tiger.  Even  the  chimpan- 
zee does  not  mate  with  the  gorilla.  Members  of  the 
same  family  can  and  do  mate  regardless  of  the  wide 
variations  of  race.  The  white  man  can  mate  with  the 
African  negress,  the  American  Indian  can  mate  with 
white  woman,  negress,  Chinese  or  Jap  for  the  reason 
that  they  are  members  of  the  same  family,  Homo  sap- 
iens. Horrible  as  is  the  contemplation  of  the  thought 
it  is  none  the  less  true  that  the  human,  however  per- 
vert, does  not  and  cannot  mate  with  the  simian,  for 
which  reason  there  is  no  offspring  and  can  be  no  off- 
spring between  man  and  any  of  the  apes. 

The  uncritical  look  upon  the  natural  and  beautiful 
developments  of  different  families  within  the  limits  of 
variation  and  are  taught  to  interpret  what  they  see  as 
evidences  for  evolution.  It  is  this  confusion  that  sets 
them  off  along  a  path  strewn  with  theory  and  invention 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  105 

so  plausibly  constructed  as  to  take  advantage  of  the 
seemingly  obvious  so  that  the  stretch  from  hypothesis 
to  alleged  fact  is  presented  without  violence. 

Few,  indeed,  are  the  victims  of  the  materialistic  phil- 
osophy of  evolution  who  are  now  capable  of  recogniz- 
ing the  fact  that  monkeys  are  always  monkeys  and  men 
are  always  men  in  the  true  Darwinian  sense,  prefer- 
ring, as  they  do,  to  believe  that  one  species  can  and 
does  evolve  into  other  species  instead  of  into  many 
wonderful  and  beautiful  varieties  of  the  same  species. 
Variation  and  evolution  are  not  now  and  never  were 
synonymous. 

Haeckel 's  Biogenetic  Principle 

Many  of  the  critics  of  the  writer's  papers,  particu- 
larly those  of  the  medical  profession,  sought  to  influ- 
ence the  editor  of  the  New  York  Globe  to  discontinue 
the  series  by  admitting  that  even  though  the  pala?on- 
tological  evidence  for  evolution  had  broken  down,  there 
were  still  the  biogenetic  principles  to  consider. 

Here,  again,  they  were  being  influenced  by  Haeckel, 
who  developed  the  biogenetic  principle  by  which  he 
sought  to  show  that  man  before  his  birth  passes 
through  twenty-two  stages  of  development,  later 
brought  up  to  thirty  stages,  corresponding  with  the 
same  number  of  stages  of  his  ancestors,  including  the 
whole  outfit,  jellyfish,  tadpole,  etc.,  terminating  in  the 
monkey  and  through  the  monkey  by  way  of  Homo  stu- 
pidus,  into  man. 

Because  unborn  man  in  the  foetus  at  an  early  stage 
resembles  a  tadpole,  for  instance,  it  would  be  proof, 
according  to  Haeckel,  that  man's  ancestors  passed 
through  the  tadpole  stage  millions  of  years  ago. 

Of  course  if  the  biogenetic  principle  thus  set  forth 
is  true  in  the  sense  that  the  growth  of  the  individual 


106  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

represents  a  faithful  reproduction  of  the  evolution  of 
the  race,  it  follows  that  apes  are  descended  from  men, 
not  men  from  apes,  because  among  the  higher  apes  the 
baby  ape  resembles  man  in  the  formation  of  the  cra- 
nium and  in  the  shape  of  the  face  far  more  closely  than 
the  adult  ape.  This  scientific  fact,  which  is  not  a  the- 
ory, would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  in  their  youth 
the  higher  apes  give  proof,  by  passing  through  a  stage 
of  marked  resemblance  to  man,  that  the  whole  ape 
family  descended  from  man  instead  of  the  other  way 
round. 

At  this  point  we  discover  the  ape-man  evolutionist 
in  the  very  act  of  skulking  away  from  his  own  humilia- 
tion. All  evolutionists  are  agreed  that  the  non-resemb- 
lance of  any  known  ape  to  man  forbids  even  a  remote 
possibility  that  man  could  have  descended  from  such 
creatures.  All  evolutionists  are  agreed  that  man  could 
NOT  have  descended  from  any  known  ape.  They  are 
forced  to  a  finality  of  complete  and  absolute  submis- 
sion and  surrender  on  this  difficulty  which  they  them- 
selves have  erected  in  their  own  path.  Hence,  to  cover 
their  embarrassment  when  confronting  the  cold  facts 
of  the  case,  they  are  driven  to  the  desperate  extrem- 
ity of  finding  an  ape  whose  peculiar  physical  charac- 
teristics would  solve  the  difficulty.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  they  invent  an  "unknown  ape  of  which  no  living 
form  exists  and  of  which  no  fossil  remains  have  ever 
been  discovered." 

Confounding  of  Species 

Darwin  himself  was  greatly  puzzled  by  the  obviously 
jealous  operations  of  an  inviolable  law,  the  unique 
exceptions  to  which,  because  of  their  unsatisfactory 
and  complicated  nature,  only  serve  to  confirm  the  un- 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Head  of  Galada  Baboon,  said  to  be  lower  in  the  chain  of  evolu- 
tion than  the  gorilla.     Note  "superiority"  of  chin. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  107 

yielding  rigidity  of  that  law,  in  its  effort  to  prevent 
the  confounding  of  species. 

Speaking  of  the  origin  and  causes  of  the  sterility  of 
first  crosses  and  of  hybrids  ("The  Origin  of  Species," 
Appleton,  1920,  vol.  2,  p.  21),  he  voices  a  hint  of  his 
bewilderment  in  the  following  words:  "It  is  almost 
as  much  opposed  to  the  theory  of  natural  selection  as 
to  that  of  special  creation  (sic),  that  in  reciprocal 
crosses  the  male  element  of  one  form  should  have  been 
rendered  utterly  impotent  on  a  second  form,  whilst  at 
the  same  time  the  male  element  of  this  second  form  is 
enabled  freely  to  fertilize  the  first  form;  for  this  pe- 
culiar state  of  the  reproductive  system  could  hardly 
have  been  advantageous  to  either  species.' '  Almost  as 
much  opposed?  Opposed  unanswerably!  In  fact  there 
goes  the  whole  theory  of  natural  selection  which  has 
nothing  to  do  with  special  creation  despite  Darwin's 
effort  to  combine  the  two  terms  in  one  phrase.  Lab- 
oratory experiments  are  not  acts  of  special  creation 
nor  are  they  manifestations  of  natural  selection. 

Freely  confessing  that  the  subject  is  "extraordinar- 
ily complex,"  he  refers  to  the  observations  communi- 
cated to  him  by  Mr.  Hewitt,  who  had  great  experience 
in  hybridizing  pheasants  and  fowl,  declaring  that  the 
early  death  of  the  embryo  is  a  very  frequent  cause  of 
sterility  in  first  crosses.  He  also  refers  to  the  examin- 
ation of  about  500  eggs  produced  from  various  crosses 
between  three  species  of  Gallus  and  their  hybrids.  A 
majority  of  these  eggs  had  been  fertilized,  yet  the  em- 
bryos had  either  been  partially  developed  and  then  had 
perished,  or  had  become  nearly  mature,  but  the  young 
chicks  were  unable  to  break  through  the  shell.  Dar- 
win says  ("The  Origin  of  Species,"  Appleton, 
1920,  vol.  2,  p.  24)  :  "Of  the  chickens  which  were  born 
more  than  four-fifths  died  within  the  first  few  days  or, 
at  latest,  weeks,  without  any  obvious  cause,  apparently 


108  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

from  mere  inability  to  live,  so  that  from  the  500  eggs 
only  twelve  chickens  were  reared.  With  plants,  hy- 
bridized embryos  probably  often  perish  in  a  like  man- 
ner ;  at  least  it  is  known  that  hybrids  raised  from  very 
distinct  species  are  sometimes  weak  and  dwarfed,  and 
perish  at  an  early  age." 

In  contemplation  of  these  phenomena  Darwin  never 
ceased  to  wonder.  He  could  find  no  explanation  why 
an  organism,  when  placed  under  unnatural  conditions, 
is  rendered  sterile.  All  that  he  could  attempt  to  show 
is,  that  in  two  cases,  in  some  respects  allied,  sterility  is 
the  common  result, — in  the  one  case  from  the  conditions 
of  life  having  been  disturbed,  in  the  other  case  from 
the  organization  having  been  disturbed  BY  TWO  OR- 
GANIZATIONS BEING  COMPOUNDED  INTO 
ONE. 

"A  similar  parallelism  holds  good  with  an  allied  yet 
very  different  class  of  facts."  (" Origin  of  Species," 
Appleton,  1920,  vol.  2,  pp.  27-28.)  "It  is  an  old  and 
almost  universal  belief,  founded  on  a  considerable 
body  of  evidence,  which  I  have  elsewhere  given,  that 
slight  changes  in  the  conditions  of  life  are  BENE- 
FICIAL to  all  living  things.  We  see  this  acted  on  by 
farmers  and  gardeners  in  their  frequent  exchange  of 
seeds,  tubers,  etc.,  from  one  soil  or  climate  to  another, 
and  back  again.  During  the  convalescence  of  animals, 
great  benefit  is  derived  from  almost  any  change  in 
their  habits  of  life.  Again,  both  with  plants  and  ani- 
mals, there  is  the  clearest  evidence  that  a  cross  be- 
tween individuals  of  the  same  species,  which  differ 
to  a  certain  extent,  gives  vigor  and  fertility  to  the  off- 
spring. Hence  it  seems  that  slight  changes  in  the  con- 
ditions of  life  BENEFIT  all  organic  beings,  but  a  cross 
between  two  forms,  that  have  become  widely  or  spe- 
cifically different,  do  produce  hybrids  which  are  almost 
always  in  some  degree  sterile." 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  109 

Summing  up,  Darwin  asserts  that  first  crosses  be- 
tween forms  sufficiently  distinct  to  be  ranked  as  spe- 
cies, and  their  hybrids,  are  very  generally  but  not  uni- 
versally sterile.  Darwin,  be  it  remembered,  was  trying 
to  uphold  the  theory  of  natural  selection.  He  had  not 
gone  so  far  as  to  declare  that  man's  ancestor  was  one 
of  the  great  apes.  He  really  did  believe  that  man's 
descent  was  from  some  form  of  lower  ape-like  animal, 
and  the  student  of  his  "Descent  of  Man"  will  recall 
the  illustrations  designed  to  show  similarity  between 
the  embryo  not  of  man  and  monkey,  but  of  man  and 
dog!  The  mandrill,  though  a  monkey,  is  more  like  a 
dog  than  an  ape. 

That  he  was  baffled  by  the  difficulties  which  continue 
to  baffle  the  scientists  of  today  is  revealed  by  his  own 
summation.  "Finally,  then,  although  we  are  as  ig- 
norant of  the  precise  cause  of  the  sterility  of  first 
crosses  and  of  hybrids  as  we  are  why  animals  and 
plants  removed  from  their  natural  conditions  become 
sterile,  yet  the  facts  given  do  not  SEEM  TO  ME  op- 
posed to  the  belief  that  species  aboriginally  existed 
as  varieties." 

It  was  necessary  for  him  to  favor  the  idea  of  vari- 
eties from  one  aboriginal  species  rather  than  the  crea- 
tion of  all  the  species  as  distinct  and  separate  identities 
in  order  to  support  his  own  theory  of  natural  selection. 
That  he  did  favor  himself  and  the  product  of  his  own 
inference  merely  serves  to  emphasize  the  tendency  of 
human  nature  toward  preconceptions  and  a  natural 
bias  which  if  not  directed  and  controlled  by  supernat- 
ural motives  tends  to  take  sides  just  as  frequently 
against  the  truth  as  for  it. 

From  Egg  to  Adult 

Certain  it  is  that  every  egg  is  a  law  unto  itself.  ^  It 
is  forced  on  by  "something  higher  than  itself    to  fol- 


110  .      GOD— OR  GORILLA 

low  a  plan,  as  we  shall  see  in  greater  detail  a  little 
later  in  connection  with  the  Mason  bee,  until  it  fulfils 
the  destiny  outlined  for  it  by  that  same  "  something 
higher  than  itself." 

The  living  cell  with  which  all  animals  begin  is  al- 
most always  of  infinitesimal  size,  as  a  rule  not  more 
than  the  one-hundred-twenty-fifth  part  of  an  inch  in 
diameter.  Embryology  informs  us  that  "all  cells  more 
or  less  agree  with  one  another,  since  as  a  rule  each 
possesses  a  wall,  a  nucleus  and  cell  contents.' '  The 
extraordinary  thing  about  them  is  the  extraordinary 
diversity  of  their  operations  and  the  extraordinary 
thing  about  this  extraordinary  diversity  is  its  extraor- 
dinary adherence  to  the  course  mapped  out  for  it  by 
that  "something  higher  than  itself.' ' 

At  one  time  the  process  of  cell  division  was  ex- 
plained in  a  mechanical  manner,  but  science  itself  now 
shows  that  cell  division  is  susceptible  of  no  such  ex- 
planation. In  experimental  embryology  the  eggs  of 
various  lower  forms  of  life  are  developed  after  fertil- 
ization under  strange  and  unnatural  conditions.  In- 
stead of  permitting  the  frog-spawn  to  develop,  for  in- 
stance, under  their  natural  spherical  form,  the  experi- 
menter flattens  them  out  between  two  sheets  of  glass. 
Notwithstanding  this  abnormal  condition,  the  frog  egg 
as  soon  as  released  from  the  experimenter's  trap  in- 
sists upon  reforming  itself  and  persists  in  such  a 
course  until  it  has  succeeded  in  restoring  its  normal 
and  natural  shape.  "It  almost  seems,"  says  Wilson, 
"The  Cell  in  Development  and  Inheritance,"  "as  if 
every  egg  was  a  law  unto  itself." 

In  nature  frog's  eggs  are  never  subjected  to  such 
unnatural  conditions.  Consequently  the  experimental 
frog's  egg  inherits  no  instinct  by  which  it  is  enabled  to 
overcome  the  sudden  and  wholly  unfamiliar  situation 
which  its  ancestors  had  never  been  called  upon  to  meet. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  111 

As  we  have  already  seen,  certain  defenders  of  the 
theory  of  evolution,  although  prepared  to  admit  that 
the  palneontological  evidence  is  broken  down,  insist 
that  there  are  still  the  zoological,  the  biological  and  the 
morphological  proofs  to  sustain  them.  Ernst  Haeckel 
and  Fritz  Miiller  advanced  the  theory  that  man  in  his 
individual  development  reproduced  a  number  of  an- 
cestral forms  in  succession  (in  the  womb  before  his 
birth)  and  that  this  constituted  a  conclusive  proof  of 
his  descent  from  beasts.  Oscar  Hertwig,  in  his  "  Gen- 
eral Biology,"  and  also  in  his  "Comparative  and  Ex- 
perimental Evolution  of  Vertebrates,"  declares  that 
the  evolution  of  the  individual  is  not  a  repetition  of 
that  of  the  race,  but,  assuming  the  principle  of  evolu- 
tion, we  must  regard  it  as  a  continuation  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  race.  As  this  process  continues,  the 
corresponding  new  generation  must  advance  somewhat 
further  than  its  immediate  predecessor. 

The  apparent  repetition  of  many  previous  stages  of 
development  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  is  es- 
sential to  the  very  nature  of  development  to  advance 
from  what  is  simple  to  what  is  complex.  The  more 
highly  any  animal  is  organized,  the  more  stages  of  de- 
velopment must  it  pass  through,  before  reaching  the 
complex  final  stage,  and  it  is  quite  in  accordance  with 
nature  that  the  previous  transitional  stages,  being  sim- 
pler, should  resemble  the  final  stages  of  other  animals, 
which  have  remained  stationary  at  a  lower  degree  of 
organization.  This  constitutes  no  proof  that  the  hu- 
man race  has  passed  through  all  these  stages,  but  it 
only  shows  that  the  evolution  of  the  individual  goes 
on  from  the  first  sub-division  of  the  impregnated  egg 
through  various  stages,  until  the  final  form  of  the  per- 
fect organism  is  reached. 


112  GOD— OE  GORILLA 

Fish  Gills  and  Human  Ear 

It  is  said  there  is  no  possible  explanation  for  certain 
stages  in  the  development  of  the  individual  human  be- 
ing unless  they  be  regarded  as  repetitions  of  an  earlier 
race-evolution  in  conformity  with  Haeckel's  principle. 
The  most  important  of  the  so-called  " proofs"  of  this 
are  the  so-called  branchial  arches  and  clefts  of  the 
human  embryo.  They  occur  to  the  number  of  four  in 
all  mammals  and  to  the  number  of  three  in  all  human 
beings.  In  fish  they  develop  eventually  into  real  bran- 
chial arches  and  real  branchial  clefts.  In  the  case  of 
man  the  first  branchial  arch  becomes  the  mouth,  and 
the  first  branchial  cleft  becomes  the  external  ear.  The 
others  undergo  involution,  or  they  form  other  organs, 
the  bones  of  the  internal  ear,  etc. 

Erich  Wasmann  ("The  Problem  of  Evolution,"  p. 
61),  says:  "The  so-called  branchial  arches  and  clefts 
are  merely  curves  and  folds  of  the  pharynx  which  are 
quite  unimportant  in  themselves,  and  eventually  de- 
velop into  something  bearing  no  resemblance  to  real 
branchial  arches  or  clefts.  They  are,  in  fact, 
PHARYNGEAL  ARCHES  AND  CLEFTS. 

"In  the  case  of  fish  to  whose  existence  gills  are  es- 
sential a  similar  arrangement  develops  into  real  gills, 
and  so  with  regard  to  fish  alone  it  is  correct  to  speak 
of  real  branchial  arches  and  clefts  as  existing  in  the 
embryo." 

Here,  again,  we  see  an  uncanny  instance  of  impulsive 
conclusions  derived  from  wholly  dissimilar  subjects 
bearing  to  each  other  a  superficial  and  fleeting  resemb- 
lance and  which,  therefore,  are  melted  into  one  vessel 
and  given  a  common  name  so  that  out  of  the  confusion, 
for  the  sake  of  a  theory,  some  additional  plausibility 
may  be  derived. 

Yet  learned  men  fail  to  observe  how  preposterous  it 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  113 

is  to  draw  conclusions  in  the  name  of  science  from  the 
false  premises  thus  set  up.  As  late  as  July  7,  1921,  in 
a  signed  editorial  in  the  New  York  American,  Mr.  Ar- 
thur Brisbane  said:  "The  interesting  question,  one 
that  puzzled  Darwin  to  the  last,  is:  'How  did  the  eye 
first  start  V 

"You  can  explain  the  fish  gill  changing  to  the  human 
ear  (sic),  the  fin  to  the  bird's  wing  or  man's  arm  (sic). 
But  how  did  blind  creatures  of  the  earliest  life  develop 
eyes  and  the  complicated  machinery  of  vision?  Evolu- 
tion, survival  of  the  fittest,  struggle  for  existence,  adap- 
tation to  environment  and  all  the  other  formulae  do 
not  explain  that  any  more  than  they  could  explain  an 
electric  fan  or  a  Kodak.  In  that  the  pious  may  find 
comfort  and  ammunition. ' ' 

"Absolutely  and  Radically  False' ' 

Mr.  Brisbane  is  altogether  certain  about  the  fish 
gill  and  the  human  ear.  He  has  not  yet  heeded  the  dif- 
ference between  branchial  arches  and  clefts  on  the  one 
hand  and  PHARYNGEAL  arches  and  clefts  on  the 
other.  However,  his  comfortable  though  futile  cer- 
tainty, with  regard  to  the  truth  of  a  conviction  that 
has  no  truth  in  it,  is  quite  sufficient  to  him,  as  an  ape- 
man  evolutionist,  to  offset  the  deadly  complications 
and  massive  obstacles  involved  in  the  evolutionary 
riddle:  "How  did  the  eye  first  start?"  Darwin  him- 
self was  baffled  by  that  all  but  miraculous  organ.  Re- 
ferring to  Virchow's  reverential  appreciation  of  its 
"beautiful  crystalline  lens"  he  says  ("The  Origin  of 
Species,"  Appleton,  1920,  vol.  1,  p.  227)  :  "To  arrive 
at  a  just  conclusion  regarding  the  formation  of  the  eye, 
with  all  its  marvelous  characters,  it  is  indispensable 
that  the  reason  should  conquer  the  imagination ;  but  I 
have  felt  the  difficulty  far  too  keenly  to  be  surprised  at 


114  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

others  hesitating  to  extend  the  principle  of  natural  se- 
lection to  so  startling  a  length."  Let  the  skeptics 
pause,  for  here  again  Darwin  voices  belief  in  God.  The 
succeeding  paragraph  contains  the  following:  "  .  .  . 
a  living  optical  instrument  as  superior  to  one  of  glass, 
as  the  works  of  the  Creator  are  to  those  of  man." 

Of  course  there  can  be  no  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  eye,  about  which  evolutionists  are  quite  as  silent 
as,  in  the  case  of  the  gills,  they  are  vociferous.  They 
entirely  pass  over  the  fact  noted  by  Mivart  ("Types 
of  Animal  Life,"  p.  113),  that  the  salamander,  an  Am- 
phibian, brings  forth  its  young  without  gills.  Previ- 
ously to  birth  they  have  gills  relatively  large. 

When  experiments  were  conducted  to  bring  them 
forth  prematurely  by  artificial  means,  the  first  thing 
they  did  when  placed  in  water  was  to  cast  off  these 
large  embryonic  gills,  which  were  speedily  replaced  by 
smaller  gills  which  lasted  as  long  as  two  weeks.  Obvi- 
ously the  large  gills,  characteristic  of  gestation,  were 
no  inheritance  from  a  previous  aquatic  existence,  whose 
various  stages  were  thus  supposed  to  be  duplicated 
according  to  the  biogenetic  principle.  They  were  use- 
less to  life  in  the  water  after  birth  but  were  altogether 
essential  to  the  conditions  of  life  before  birth.  The  new 
gills,  suitable  for  the  salamander's  artificially  dis- 
turbed condition  of  existence,  were  developed  "not  in 
a  struggle  for  existence  against  rivals,  for  there  were 
no  rivals,  but  directly  and  spontaneously  from  the  in- 
nate nature  of  the  animal." 

This  conviction  was  adopted  even  by  the  ardent  evo- 
lutionist, Carl  Vogt,  who  is  quoted  by  M.  de  Quatre- 
fages  ("Les  Emules  de  Darwin,"  ii.,  p.  13)  :  "It  has 
been  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  law  of  biogenesis  that 
the  development  of  the  individual  and  the  development 
of  the  race  must  exactly  correspond.  This  law  which 
I  long  held  as  well  founded  is  absolutely  and  radically 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  115 

false.  Attentive  study  of  embryology  shows  us,  in 
fact,  that  embryos  have  their  own  conditions  suitable 
to  themselves,  very  different  from  those  of  adults. 
The  development  of  the  individual  of  all  organic  beings, 
without  exception,  is  the  normal  result  of  all  the  vari- 
ous influences  which  operate  upon  such  beings. ' ' 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Swan  Song  of  Darwinism 

Climbing  down,  not  up! — The  death  of  Darwinism — The  burial  of  Dar- 
winism. 

The  evolutionist  asserts  that  snakes  are  descended 
from  lizards,  and  that  some  of  them  have  rudimentary 
legs  even  in  the  adult  stage.  Some  snakes  have  no 
trace  of  limbs,  even  in  the  eggy  but  they  do  have  ves- 
tiges of  gills.  Evolution,  though  it  does  nothing  of 
the  kind,  is  thus  compelled  to  link  them  up  not  with  the 
more  recent  land  animals  but  with  the  more  ancient 
water  creatures.  How  else  are  those  gills  to  be  ex- 
plained? 

Mivart  points  out  (" Tablet,' '  April  21,  1888),  that 
Amphibians,  frogs,  newts  and  the  like,  agree  in  some 
respects  as  to  the  development  of  the  germ  with  mam- 
mals, differing  in  the  same  respects  from  reptiles  and 
birds.  But  reptiles  and  birds  are  supposed  to  be  more 
recent  evolutionary  developments  than  frogs,  newts, 
etc.  Eeptiles  and  birds  should,  therefore,  come  be- 
tween frogs  (earlier)  and  mammals  (later)  on  the 
genealogical  tree.  Moreover,  the  eggs  of  one  groups 
of  Amphibians  are  found  to  exhibit  remarkable  re- 
semblances to  the  eggs  of  reptiles  and  birds,  from 
which  it  would  thus  appear  they  have  derived  these 
remarkable  resemblances,  although  on  other  grounds 
the  arrangement  should  be  just  the  other  way  round. 

Most  frogs,  toads,  and  newts  come  out  of  the  egg  as 
tadpoles,  furnished  with  gills  which  enable  them  to 

116 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  117 

breathe  in  water.  This  certainly,  according  to  all  evo- 
lutionary principles,  should  indicate  that  frogs,  toads 
and  newts  are  descended  from  fish.  There  is  no  other 
conceivable  explanation  of  the  phenomena.  In  their 
effort  to  establish  man's  descent  from  the  ape,  the  evo- 
lutionists have  so  urged  this  point  as  to  make  it  now 
rise  against  them.  One  frog  (Rana  opisthodon)  is  never 
a  tadpole  even  in  the  egg,  from  which  he  emerges  by 
means  of  a  special  opener  on  his  snout.  On  the  other 
hand  certain  newts,  the  Mexican  Axolotl,  the  Triton 
Alpestris,  etc.,  breed  as  tadpoles  instead  of  in  adult 
life. 

' i  This  looks  like  an  attempt  to  climb  down  the  gene- 
alogical tree  instead  of  up,"  observes  Professor  John 
Gerard  ("The  Old  Riddle  and  the  Newest  Answer,' ' 
p.  195),  in  a  phrase  for  which  he  thanks  Professor 
Milnes  Marshall. 

In  a  scientific  paper,  reviewing  Haeckel's  Anthropo- 
genic, Professor  Marshall  {''Nature/'  March  24, 
1892),  exposed  Haeckel's  descriptions  of  human  em- 
bryology as  the  descriptions  of  the  embryo  of  dogs, 
pigs,  rabbits,  even  chickens  and  dogfish.  "  A  student,' 
says  Professor  Marshall,  "who  relied  on  Professor 
Haeckel's  description  would  obtain  an  entirely  errone- 
ous idea  of  the  development  of  the  human  embryo.  It 
is  a  matter  of  great  regret  that  a  book  of  900  pages, 
bearing  such  a  title,  should  be  allowed  to  appear,  in 
which  the  account  of  the  actual  development  of  the 
human  embryo  is  so  inadequate  and  erroneous.' 
(Other  frauds  of  Haeckel  are  described  pages  51  and 
53-59.) 

In  this  connection  Professor  Gerard  makes  clear  the 
all  but  impenetrable  darkness  through  which,  without 
a  lantern  to  guide  him,  the  evolutionist  boldly  at- 
tempts to  make  his  way.  He  says :  "Far  more  funda- 
mental, however,  is  the  remark  of  Mivart's,  that  if,  as 


118  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Darwinians  say,  the  development  of  the  individual  is 
an  epitome  of  that  of  the  species,  the  latter  must  like 
the  former  be  due  to  the  action  of  definite  innate  laws 
unconsciously  carrying  out  definite  pre-ordained  ends 
and  purposes.  For  although  cells  or  embryos  may  be 
indistinguishable  from  one  another,  and  may  appear 
to  us  identical  in  constitution,  their  differences  are 
absolute.  Each  is  determined  to  be  one  sort  of  animal 
and  no  other,  and  can  live  at  all  only  on  condition  of 
developing  towards  the  prescribed  form.  Therefore, 
whatever  evidence  the  embryonic  forms  may  be  sup- 
posed to  afford  in  support  of  evolution,  they  have 
nothing  in  common  with  the  haphazard  process  of 
natural  selection. 

"And  here  again  Professor  Huxley  found  himself 
obliged  to  enter  his  caveat,  and  to  intimate  his  opinion 
that  some  of  his  friends  were  inclined  to  build  too  con- 
fidently upon  this  foundation.  As  his  biographer  Pro- 
fessor Weldon  writes  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography:  ' Darwin  had  suggested  an  interpretation 
of  the  facts  of  embryology  which  led  to  the  hope  that 
a  fuller  knowledge  of  development  might  reveal  the 
history  of  all  the  great  groups  of  animals  at  least  in 
its  main  outlines.  This  hope  was  of  service  as  a  stim- 
ulus to  research,  but  the  attempt  to  interpret  the  phe- 
nomena observed  led  to  speculations  which  were  often 
fanciful  and  always  incapable  of  verification.  Huxley 
was  keenly  sensible  of  the  danger  attending  the  use  of 
a  hypothetical  explanation,  leading  to  conclusions 
which  cannot  be  experimentally  tested,  and  he  carefully 
avoided  it.'  ...  In  the  preface  to  the  ' Manual  of  the 
Comparative  Anatomy  of  Invertebrated  Animals,'  he 
says:  'I  have  abstained  from  discussing  questions  of 
aetiology  (the  science  of  causes),  not  because  I  under- 
estimate their  importance,  or  am  insensible  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  great  problem  of  evolution,  but  because, 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Sapaiou.      Another    tailed    specimen    of    "man's    earlier    an< 
tors  "     It  will  be  noted  that  the  tail  which   man   is  said   to 
have   lost   constitutes   nearly   a  fourth   of   the   body   bull 
this   creature. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  119 

to  my  mind,  the  growing  tendency  to  mix  up  nptiologi- 
cal  speculations  with  morphological  generalizations 
will,  if  unchecked,  throw  biology  into  confusion. ' 

The  Death  of  Darwinism 

" Accordingly,  Huxley  himself  based  his  faith  in 
evolution  on  palaeontological  evidence,  and  attempted 
to  decide  the  precise  course  it  had  followed  only  '  in  the 
few  cases  where  the  evidence  seemed  to  him  sufficiently 
complete. '  (As  in  the  case  of  the  horse,  which  is  quite 
as  preposterous  as  that  of  man,  as  we  shall  shortly 
see.) 

"It  will  be  asked  how  it  comes  to  pass,  if  the  Dar- 
winian system  really  lies  open  to  so  many  objections, 
that  it  occupies  so  large  a  place  in  scientific  estimation. 
To  this  we  must  reply  that,  in  spite  of  its  great  name, 
its  success  has  throughout  been  popular  rather  than 
truly  scientific,  and  that  as  time  went  on  it  has  lost 
ground  among  the  class  of  men  best  qualified  to  judge. 
Evolutionists  there  are  in  plenty, — but  very  few  genu- 
ine Darwinists,  and  amongst  these  can  by  no  means 
be  reckoned  all  who  adopt  the  title,  for  not  a  few  of 
them — as  Romanes  and  Weismann — profess  doctrines 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  those  of  Darwin  him- 
self. 

"Meanwhile,  an  increasing  volume  of  scientific  opin- 
ion sets  definitely  against  Darwinism  as  an  adequate 
explanation  of  the  philosophy  of  life,  and  falls  into  the 
view  expressed  long  ago  by  Charles  Robin  (Diction- 
naire  encyclopedique  des  sciences  medicales)  who,  as 
a  freethinker,  had  no  antecedent  objections  against  it, 
'  Darwinism  is  a  fiction,  a  poetical  accumulation  of 
probabilities  without  proof,  and  of  attractive  explan- 
ations without  demonstration.' 

"It  would  be  tedious  to  cite  testimonies  at  length, 


120  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

but,  in  addition  to  M.  de  Quatrefages  who  has  made  a 
full  and  careful  study  of  the  whole  question  (Charles 
Darwin  et  ses  precurseurs  Frangais,  and  Les  Emules 
de  Darwin)  may  be  mentioned  such  continental  schol- 
ars as  Blanchard  (La  vie  des  etres  animes),  Wigand 
(Der  Darwinismus  und  die  Naturforschung,  etc.), 
Wolff  (Beitrage  zur  Kritik  der  darwinschen  Lehre), 
Hamann  (Entwicklungslehre  und  Darwinismus), 
Pauly  (Wahres  und  Falsches  an  Darwins  Lehre), 
Driesch  (Biologisches  Zentralblatt,  1896  and  1902), 
Plate  (Bedeutung  und  Tragweite  des  Darwinschen 
Selektionsprincip),  Hertwig  (Address  to  Naturalist 
Congress,  Aachen,  1900),  Heer  (Urwelt  der  Schweiz), 
Kolliker  (Leber  die  darwin'sche  Schopfungstheorie), 
Eimer  (Entstehung  der  Arten),  Von  Hartmann 
(Wahrheit  and  Irrthum  im  Darwinismus),  Schilde 
(Antidarwinistisches  im  Ausland),  Du  Bois-Reymond 
(Conference,  August  2,  1881,  etc.),  Virchow  (Freiheit 
der  Wissenschaft,  etc.),  Nageli  (Mechanisch-physio- 
logische  Theorie  der  Abstammungslehre,  Schaatf- 
hausen  (Ueber  die  anthropoligischen  Fragen),  Fech- 
ner  (Ideen  zur  Schopfungs-und  Entwicklungsge- 
schichte  der  Organismen),  Jacob  (Der  Mensch,  etc.), 
Diebolder  (Darwins  Grundprinzip,  etc.),  Huber  (Die 
Lehre  Darwins  kritisch  betrachtet),  Joseph  Banke, 
and  Von  Bauer, — all  of  whom  either  reject  Darwinism 
altogether,  or  admit  it  only  with  fatal  reservations." 

Even  Professor  Huxley  who  did  more  than  any  other 
man  to  spread  the  doctrine  of  Darwinism  as  the  theory 
of  natural  selection  said  with  most  impressive  reserve 
in  his  address,  1880  ("Coming  of  Age  of  the  Origin 
of  Species") :  "History  warns  us  that  it  is  the  cus- 
tomary fate  of  NEW  TRUTHS  to  begin  as  heresies 
and  to  end  as  superstitions ;  and  as  matters  now  stand 
it  is  hardly  rash  to  anticipate  that,  in  another  twenty 
years,  the  new  generation,  educated  under  the  influ- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  121 

ences  of  the  present  day,  will  be  in  danger  of  accept- 
ing the  main  doctrines  of  the  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES, 
with  as  little  reflection,  and  it  may  be  with  as  little 
justification,  as  so  many  of  our  contemporaries,  twen- 
ty years  ago,  rejected  them." 

The  Burial  of  Darwinism 

Six  years  later  Professor  Romanes  (Journal  of  Lin- 
neon  Society,  vol.  xix.,  1886)  declared:  "At  present 
it  would  be  impossible  to  find  any  working  naturalist 
who  supposes  that  survival  of  the  fittest  is  competent 
to  explain  all  the  phenomena  of  species  formation." 

Again,  May  24,  1902,  in  his  Presidential  address  to 
the  Linnean  Society,  Professor  S.  H.  Vines  defined  the 
actual  position  now  occupied  in  scientific  opinion  by 
the  Darwin  hypotheses  as  follows:  "It  is  established 
that  natural  selection  cannot  have  originated  any  spe- 
cies. It  is  still  a  mystery  why  evolution  should  tend 
from  the  lower  to  the  higher,  from  simple  to  complex 
organisms.  The  facts  seem  to  admit  of  no  other  in- 
terpretation than  that  variation  is  not  (as  Darwin 
supposed)  indeterminate  (that  is  without  a  fixed  pur- 
pose imposed  upon  it  by  something  higher  than  itself), 
but  that  there  is  in  living  matter  an  inherent  determin- 
ation (a  truly  fixed  purpose)  in  favor  of  variation  in 
the  higher  direction.' '  For  the  overwhelming  evidence 
of  a  fixed  purpose  in  nature  (bio-chemic,  metabolic, 
prophylactic  pathologic,  etc.),  see  the  writer's  work, 
"Science  of  Eating,"  in  one  volume,  George  H.  Doran 
Company,  New  York,  1920. 

This  commentary  of  Vines  merely  means  that  Dar- 
win's "Origin  of  Species"  does  not  explain  the  origin 
of  species,  and  that  as  to  the  laws  thought  to  control 
the  processes  of  evolution  they  are  certainly  not  those 
which  Darwin  assigned. 


122  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

One  year  later,  January,  1903,  Sir  Oliver  Lodge, 
writing  in  Hibbert  Journal,  p.  218,  declared  himself  in 
similar  fashion.  These  are  his  words :  * '  Take  the  ori- 
gin of  species  by  the  persistence  of  favorable  varia- 
tion; how  is  the  appearance  of  these  same  favorable 
variations  accounted  for?  Except  by  artificial  selec- 
tion not  at  all.  Given  their  appearance,  their  develop- 
ment by  struggle  and  inheritance  and  survival  can  be 
explained ;  BUT  THAT  THEY  AROSE  SPONTANE- 
OUSLY, BY  RANDOM  CHANGES  WITHOUT 
PURPOSE,  IS  AN  ASSERTION  WHICH  CANNOT 
BE  MADE."  Nor  does  he  stand  alone  in  this  convic- 
tion. 

M.  Fabre  exclaims  ("Souvenirs  entomologiques, ' ' 
3rd  series,  p.  317) :  "Let  us  acknowledge  that  in  truth 
we  know  nothing  about  anything,  so  far  as  ultimate 
truths  are  concerned.  Scientifically  considered  nature 
is  a  riddle  to  which  human  curiosity  can  find  no  an- 
swer. Hypothesis  follows  hypothesis,  the  ruins  of 
theories  are  piled  one  on  another,  but  truth  ever  es- 
capes us.  To  learn  how  to  remain  in  ignorance  may 
well  be  the  final  lesson  of  wisdom.'' 

The  evidence  of  Professor  Vines  is  confirmed  in  re- 
markable manner  by  Dr.  A.  Smith  Woodward,  Keeper 
of  Geology  in  the  National  Museum  of  Natural  History. 
Speaking  before  the  International  Congress  of  Arts 
and  Science,  September  22,  1904,  he  employed  illus- 
trations from  the  history  of  fossil  fishes  which  were 
his  specialty  and  from  the  evidence  thus  afforded  an- 
nounced: "It  must  be  confessed  that  repeated  discov- 
eries have  now  left  faint  hope  that  exact  and  gradual 
links  will  ever  be  forthcoming  between  most  of  the  fam- 
ilies and  genera.  Even  approximate  links  would  be 
much  commoner  in  collections  than  they  actually  are 
if  the  doctrine  of  gradual  evolution  (infinitesimal  steps 
in  gigantic  periods  of  time)  were  correct.    Palaeontol- 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Another  view  of  grandfather  Orang,  picturing  the  thoughtful  old  gentle- 
man in  an  attitude  of  critical  interest.  To  which  class  of  the  "edu- 
cated''  laity  does  he  belong? 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  123 

ogy  indeed  is  clearly  in  favor  of  sudden  changes  which 
have  lately  received  so  much  support  from  the  botan- 
ical experiments  of  H.  De  Vries."  (See  the  Congress 
Report,  vol.  iv.) 

We  have  had  "  early  changes  of  great  violence  fol- 
lowed by  stability ;"  "slow  changes  so  gentle  and  in- 
finitesimal in  gradations  as  to  require  millions  of 
years  before  they  could  be  observed ;"  "sudden 
changes  under  our  very  eyes."  Alas,  wThat  have  we 
not  had?  And  this  is  what  they  call  evolution! — this 
ceremonial  burial  of  "  Darwinism. ' ' 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Descent  of  Farce  Comedy 

Rudimentary   organs — Ape   blood   and   human    blood — Asses'   milk   and 
human  milk — "Resemblances"  are  differences. 

But  what  about  the  existence  of  certain  rudimentary 
organs  which  at  one  time  served  some  definite  end,  but 
later  degenerated  as  useless?  Alas,  for  the  value  of 
this  argument  in  behalf  of  evolution !  The  evolutionist 
is  confronted  by  the  fact  that  for  a  long  time  it  was  a 
common  mistake  to  describe  as  "rudimentary"  any 
organs  of  which  the  use  was  unknown  or  not  under- 
stood. 

An  instance  in  point  is  cited  by  Professor  Vernon 
Kellogg  ("Darwinism  Today,"  1908,  pp.  37-38): 
"Spencer's  example  of  the  femur  of  the  whale  is  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  reality  of  the  absurdity  con- 
nected with  the  argument  of  change  (evolution)  on  a 
basis  of  the  selection  of  infinitesimal  differences.  The 
femur  of  the  whale,  says  Spencer,  is  evidently  the  atro- 
phied rudiment  of  a  bone  once  much  larger.  It  weighs 
now  about  an  ounce,  less  than  a  millionth  the  weight  of 
the  whole  body.  Let  us  suppose  that  when  it  weighed 
two  ounces,  an  individual  (whale)  had  a  femur  which 
by  variational  chance  weighed  but  one  ounce,  what  ad- 
vantage over  other  whales  would  the  difference  give  it 
— and  yet  this  is  the  argument  for  the  reduction  of  use- 
less organs  through  the  influence  of  natural  selection." 

In  the  human  body  organs  described  as  "rudimen- 
tary" have  been  found  to  fulfil  most  important  and 

124 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  125 

most  definite  functions.  The  thyroid  gland,  the  thymus 
gland  and  the  pineal  gland  used  to  be  classified  as 
"rudimentary"  organs.  Today  a  new  school  of  medi- 
cine has  developed  as  a  result  of  the  discovery  of  the 
significance  of  these  glands  to  metabolism  and  the 
maintenance  of  physiological  equilibrium. 

It  is  still  popular  to  refer  to  the  vermiform  appen- 
dix as  a  rudimentary  organ  which  the  evolutionists 
classify  as  a  remnant  of  the  much  longer  intestine  of 
the  Trinil  Ape-Man  and  the  Piltdown  Ape-Man.  Eheu ! 
They  even  fix  the  length  of  the  intestine  of — of  what  1 

Many  physicians  are  beginning  to  recognize  the  fact 
that  appendicitis,  a  diseased  appendix,  is  the  result  of 
hypercivilization,  refined  foods,  overmilled  white  flour, 
demineralized  breakfast  foods  and  excessive  meat-eat- 
ing and  not  at  all  due  to  the  so-called  rudimentary 
character  of  the  appendix. 

As  a  member  of  the  American  Association  of  Clini- 
cal Research  under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  D.  E.  S.  Cole- 
man, professor  of  materia  medica,  Flower  Hospital, 
the  writer  never  ceased  to  marvel  over  the  growth  of 
this  conviction  among  physicians  and  surgeons  who  are 
now  giving,  in  many  notable  instances,  particular  at- 
tention to  unprocessed  and  undevitalized  foods,  retain- 
ing the  salts,  colloids  and  solubles  so  ruthlessly  re- 
jected since  the  introduction  of  the  high  milling  sys- 
tem in  1879. 

Speaking  of  the  appendix  as  a  rudimentary  organ, 
a  dwindled  organ,  certain  evolutionists,  M.  Ribbert, 
for  instance,  expressed  the  opinion  that  an  obliteration 
of  the  cavity  of  the  appendix,  occurring  during  life, 
was  a  typical  instance  of  the  process  of  involution 
which  if  true  would  indicate  that  the  appendix  might 
seem  to  be  really  a  rudimentary  organ.  But  as  ob- 
served by  Wasmann,  Dr.  Joseph  Koch  demonstrated 
that  these  obliterations  are  to  be  regarded  solely  as  con- 


126  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

sequences  of  previous  disease.  Dr.  Koch  based  his  ob- 
servations on  two  hundred  operations,  the  records  of 
which  are  to  be  found  in  "  Archiv  fur  klin.  Chirurgie," 
vol.  LXVII,  part  II.  Further  proof  of  the  accuracy  of 
these  observations  was  produced,  1904,  by  Dr.  L.  As- 
chotf  (Proceedings  of  the  German  Pathological  So- 
ciety), after  one  hundred  and  three  vermiform  appen- 
dices had  been  placed  at  his  disposal. 

"But  why,"  asks  the  evolutionist,  "if  there  is  really 
a  design  behind  creation,  should  there  be  an  inflam- 
mation of  the  appendix  resulting  in  disease? " 

In  answer  to  this,  leaving  out  all  hint  of  theology 
and  relying  solely  upon  pathology,  one  can  go  direct 
to  Germany  where  the  whole  theory  of  evolution,  as 
now  popularly  presented,  was  born.  One  of  Germany's 
most  eminent  pathologists,  Professor  G.  Bier,  the  suc- 
cessor of  von  Bergmann,  propounded  and  established 
the  thesis  (Virchow's  Archiv,  1897)  that  inflammations 
are  not  instances  of  inexpediency,  but  are,  on  the  con- 
trary, beneficial  prophylactic  devices  on  the  part  of  an 
organism  to  rid  itself  of  bacteria  or  other  injurious 
matter  that  may  have  penetrated  the  system.  A  splin- 
ter driven  into  the  flesh  and  left  alone  will  be  driven 
out  again  by  inflammation  and  pus,  most  expedient  and 
beneficial. 

As  an  instance  of  the  popular  ideas  now  current  on 
evolution,  a  clipping  from  the  New  York  Times, 
dated  Paris,  February  17,  1921,  is  eloquent.  A  mod- 
ern evolutionist  sent  it  to  the  writer  as  proof  that  man 
is  descended  from  an  ape. 

Ape  Blood  and  Human  Blood 

"The  blood  of  a  dog,  for  instance,  differs  from  hu- 
man blood,  but  even  these  tests  fail  in  the  case  of  the 
blood  of  some  anthropoid  apes.    Their  blood  is  so  sim- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  127 

ilar  to  that  of  man  that  no  test  has  been  discovered 
which  differentiates  them." 

This  Parisian  despatch  to  the  Times  was  regarded 
as  the  last  word  on  the  subject  of  evolution,  yet  this 
same  so-called  "resemblance"  of  the  blood  of  apes  to 
the  blood  of  men  has  gone  the  rounds  for  many  years 
and  an  "educated"  laity,  predisposed  toward  the  the- 
ory of  evolution,  have  emphasized  its  importance,  al- 
though the  writer  knows  of  no  individual  scientist  who 
now  speaks  of  it,  even  in  guarded  terms. 

Resemblance  between  the  blood  of  apes  and  the  blood 
of  men  involves  so  many  fantastic  considerations  that 
it  actually  throws  any  theory  of  evolution  based  on 
blood  relationship  into  the  zone  of  farce  comedy. 
Doubtless  the  average  layman  reading  a  scientific 
statement  to  the  effect  that  the  blood  of  a  dog  injected 
into  the  veins  of  a  horse  will  kill  the  horse,  whereas  the 
blood  of  a  man  injected  into  the  veins  of  an  ape  re- 
sults in  a  very  feeble  reaction,  wherefore  it  is  obvious 
that  the  dog  and  the  horse  bear  no  blood  relationship 
to  each  other  and  just  as  obvious  that  man  and  the 
ape  are  blood  relatives,  would  be  tremendously  im- 
pressed by  the  inferences  and  implications  thus  set 
forth. 

The  ape-manologists  have  fairly  revelled  in  this  sort 
of  demonstration  as  a  means  of  proving  the  theory  of 
man's  monkey  origin.  Consequently  readers  of  the 
New  York  Times  are  not  to  be  censured  undulv  for 
their  uncritical  gullibility  in  swallowing  such  "scien- 
tific" pabulum. 

It  is  indeed  a  well-known  fact  that  if  the  blood  of 
one  class  of  vertebrates,  especially  of  mammals,  be  in- 
jected into  the  veins  of  other  animals  symptoms  of 
disease  appear,  in  consequence  of  the  decomposition 
of  the  red  corpuscles  of  one  kind  of  blood  by  the  scrum 
of  the  other  kind.    No  such  consequences  follow  when 


128  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

the  two  kinds  of  animals  are  closely  related.  The  blood 
of  a  dog  is  poisonous  to  other  mammals,  wherefore  it 
follows  that  the  dog  and  other  mammals  are  not  re- 
lated by  blood.  Eagerly  seizing  upon  this  phenome- 
non the  monkey  evolutionists  wholly  overlooked  the 
ridiculous  traps  they  were  setting  for  themselves  when 
they  began  to  argue  that  the  comparatively  trifling 
consequences  that  follow  the  inoculation  of  the  ape 
with  man's  blood  prove  conclusively  that  man  is  not 
only  related  to  the  ape,  but  is  himself  a  true  ape. 

They  either  forgot  or  never  knew  that  not  only  the 
blood  but  the  blood  serum  of  the  sheep,  goat  and  horse 
when  inoculated  into  other  mammals,  including  man, 
are  followed  by  reactions  quite  as  feeble  as  those  trace- 
able to  the  inoculation  of  the  ape  with  the  blood  of  man. 
When  Elie  Metchnikoff  was  director  of  the  famous 
Pasteur  Institute  he  wrote  "The  Prolongation  of 
Life,"  1908.  On  page  147  you  will  find  the  following: 
"The  blood  of  a  dog  is  poisonous  to  other  animals, 
whilst  on  the  other  hand,  the  blood  and  blood  serum 
of  the  sheep,  goat  and  horse  have  generally  little  effect 
on  other  animals  and  on  man.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
these  animals,  and  particularly  the  horse,  are  used  in 
the  preparation  of  the  serums  employed  in  medicine. ' ' 

To  be  strictly  orthodox  as  evolutionists  we  must  noiv 
say  that  sheep  and  man,  goat  and  man,  and  horse  and 
man  are  related  by  blood. 

In  the  course  of  his  researches  into  the  causes  of 
sleeping  sickness  Professor  Brumpt  found  that  ani- 
mals, when  inoculated  with  the  blood  of  men  suffering 
from  the  disease,  fell  victims  to  sleeping  sickness,  ex- 
cept alone  a  few  apes  and  pigs.  Metchnikoff  himself 
in  his  experiments  with  Edouard,  his  chimpanzee,  en- 
deavored to  inoculate  the  creature  with  a  virulent  syph- 
ilis, obtaining,  as  have  all  the  other  experimenters  in 
this  direction,  using  monkeys  and  apes,  results  of  start- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  129 

ling  feebleness.  From  these  facts  are  we  to  infer  that 
the  composition  of  human  blood  differs  most  completely 
from  the  composition  of  the  blood  of  some  apes  and 
some  pigs?  The  absurdity  of  such  an  inference  would 
be  manifest,  but  it  shows  how  carefully  we  must  pro- 
ceed in  drawing  dogmatic  conclusions  from  strained 
inference. 

As  far  back  as  1905  Professor  Rossle  presented  evi- 
dence to  show  that  the  blood  reaction  does  not  in  any 
manner  indicate  how  closely  any  two  animals  are  re- 
lated. He  demonstrated  the  fact  that  the  chemical 
composition  of  the  fluids  of  the  body,  such  as  the  blood, 
is  no  more  constant  than  the  formation  of  the  skeleton 
itself,  for  which  reason  evidence  based  on  resemblance 
of  blood  is  no  more  trustworthy  in  support  of  a  com- 
mon descent  than  that  based  on  similarities  of  bone 
structure. 

Yet  Dr.  Friedenthal  at  the  Philharmonie,  Berlin, 
1907,  declared  that  man  was  not  only  descended  from 
apes  but  was  a  genuine  ape  himself.  He  based  his 
assertion  on  experiments  that  were  followed  by  a  very 
feeble  reaction  when  human  blood  was  injected  into 
the  veins  of  apes.  The  feebleness  of  this  reaction  was 
employed  by  him  to  support  his  contention  that  man 
and  the  anthropoid  ape  are  brothers.  Three  years 
earlier,  1904,  at  the  Anthropological  Congress  at 
Griefswald,  Dr.  Uhlenhuth  had  reported  positive  reac- 
tion when  human  anti-serum  was  injected  into  the  blood 
of  pithecoid  apes.  On  the  same  occasion  the  same  Dr. 
Friedenthal  reported  positive  results  in  connection 
with  the  lemur oids  through  whom  Haeckel  and  II .  G. 
Wells  have  traced  man's  descent. 

Friedenthal  was  challenged  by  Erich  Wasmann  as 
to  how,  under  such  circumstances,  he  could  still  persist 
in  his  declaration  that  man  was  not  only  closely  re- 
lated to  the  ape  but  was  a  genuine  ape  himself.    With 


130  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

considerable  embarrassment  to  bis  followers  Frieden- 
thal  attempted  to  explain  that  be  had  merely  pointed 
out  what  precaution  must  be  taken  to  avoid  certain 
sources  of  error,  and  was  prepared  to  admit  that  a 
chemical  and  physiological  likeness  between  two  kinds 
of  blood  must  not  be  regarded  as  establishing  blood 
relationship.  This  admission  was  in  violent  contrast 
to  his  assertion  that  man  is  not  merely  descended  from 
apes  but  is  a  genuine  ape  himself.  Perhaps  he  fore- 
saw the  difficulty  of  admitting,  as  a  result  of  his  own 
processes  of  reasoning,  that  man  was  not  only  descend- 
ed from  goats,  but  was  a  true  goat  himself. 

It  is  said  that  corrupt  politicians  when  exposed  usu- 
ally seek  to  make  one  of  their  weaker  members  "the 
goat,"  wherefore  the  term  "goat"  acquires  not  only 
a  criminological  but  a  biological  significance.  Perhaps 
if  the  "goat"  were  capable  of  bearing  a  heavy  load  it 
would  be  more  apt  to  call  him  a  horse,  as  it  is  quite 
obvious  from  the  blood  proof  that  man  is  not  only 
descended  from  horses,  but  is  himself  a  true  horse. 

Dr.  L.  Duncan  Bulkley,  senior  physician,  the  New 
York  Skin  and  Cancer  Hospital,  presents  evidence  to 
show  that  "it  is  impossible  to  inoculate  human  cancer 
into  apes."  He  also  declares  that  animal  tumors 
cannot  be  inoculated  into  animals  of  a  different  species, 
and  that  even  rats  and  mice  are  immune  to  human 
cancer.  (See  "Cancer,  Its  Cause  and  Treatment," 
1915,  p.  20).  Professor  Arthur  Keith  declares:  "If 
an  ordinary  monkey  is  infected  with  syphilis  no  real 
inoculation  takes  place ;  at  the  most  only  a  passing  dis- 
turbance is  manifested.  The  chimpanzee  and  orang 
sutler  only  from  the  milder  effects  of  the  disease" — 
which  is  followed  by  such  appalling  havoc  in  man. 
Thus  one  by  one  from  the  platform  of  monkey  evolu- 
tion are  the  props  pulled  out.  (See  "The  Human 
Body,"  1910,  p.  52). 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  131 

Dr.  Friedenthal  did  not  know  this  in  1904  or  in  1007. 
Otherwise  he  would  have  ventured  no  such  assertion 
as:    "Man  is  a  genuine  ape  himself.' ' 

Asses  '  Milk  and  Human  Milk 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  certain  types  of 
scientists  consider  bodily  differences  or  bodily  resemb- 
lances of  such  vast  importance  when  even  to  the  lay- 
man the  mental  divergence  constitutes  the  chief  differ- 
ence between  man  and  beast.  The  rational  soul  of 
man,  as  distinguished  from  the  brute  instincts  of  the 
ape,  constitutes  a  gap  over  which  science  makes  no 
effort  to  throw  a  bridge  of  any  kind.  This  difference 
will  be  emphasized  as  we  take  up  the  astonishing  case 
of  that  "genius  of  geometricians,"  the  Mason-bee. 

What  absurd  conclusions  might  be  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  of  the  milk  of  all  animals  human  milk  more 
nearly  resembles  ass's  milk!  Here  the  resemblance  is 
marked  not  only  by  quantitative  analysis,  but  by  the 
fact  that  human  milk,  like  ass's  milk,  leaves  no  residue 
of  nuclein  or  paranuclein  on  digestion,  and  the  casein 
of  both  produces  an  alkaline  reaction. 

Because  of  this  resemblance  Robert  Hutchison,  M.D., 
Edin.  F.R.C.P.,  reported,  1911,  that  one  of  the  large 
London  dairy  companies  now  keeps  a  stock  of  milch 
asses  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  ass's  milk  for  deli- 
cate human  babes. 

Perhaps  a  comedian  might  argue  from  this  resemb- 
lance that  man,  instead  of  being  a  true  ape,  is  a  true  ass. 
Why,  therefore,  should  we  speak  of  a  resemblance  be- 
tween man  and  OTHER  apes.  Why  not  speak  of  the 
resemblance  between  man  and  OTHER  asses.  The  use 
of  that  word  OTHER  as  well  as  the  use  of  that  word 
ALREADY  has  helped  many  an  ape  champion  to  score 


132  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

a  " deadly' '  point  in  his  encounters  with  the  impres- 
sionable populace. 

"Fetichism,"  says  H.  G.  Wells  ("  Outline  of  His- 
tory/ '  vol.  1,  p.  123),  "is  only  incorrect  science  based 
on  guesswork  or  false  analysis."  Perhaps  this  sort 
of  thing  is  an  instance  not  of  science,  but  of  f  etichism. 

Next  to  ass's  milk  the  nearest  resemblance  to  human 
milk  is  to  be  found  in  mare 's  milk,  but  there  would  be 
more  difficulty  in  proving  that  man  descended  from 
the  horse  rather  than  from  the  ass  for  the  reason,  as 
we  shall  see  in  detail  a  little  later,  that  there  is  ex- 
cellent warrant  for  the  belief  that  the  horse's  own 
grandfather  actually  came  into  existence  on  this  planet 
before  its  great  grandfathers  were  born. 

" Resemblances"  Are  Differences 

It  is  customary  among  evolutionists  to  emphasize  all 
the  so-called  morphological  "resemblances"  between 
man  and  the  higher  mammals,  including  the  higher 
apes,  as  constituting  so  many  points  of  evidence  in 
support  of  the  theory  of  evolution.  The  overshadow- 
ing differences  and  divergencies  between  man  and  all 
the  higher  mammals,  including  the  higher  apes,  are  so 
tremendous  when  contrasted  with  the  superficial  re- 
semblances as  to  be  all  the  more  eloquent  as  points  of 
evidence  in  refutation  of  the  ape-man  theory  of  evolu- 
tion. 

How  can  the  evolutionist  describe  as  "scientific" 
the  segregation  of  these  feeble  and  contradictory 
points  of  resemblance  while  at  the  same  time  turning 
his  back  upon  the  radical  and  irresistible  points  of  dif- 
ference and  divergence  which,  judged  by  his  own  stand- 
ards, are  literally  unanswerable  as  proofs  of  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  hypothesis  that  man  is  a  descendant  of 
apes  or  of  any  other  mammals? 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  133 

In  comparing  the  thigh  bones  of  man  and  of  the 
higher  apes  Professor  0.  Walkhoff  declares : 

"The  radical  difference  goes  so  far  that  it  is  pos- 
sible to  determine  analytically  from  any  X-ray  photo- 
graph of  a  frontal  section,  and  even  from  any  complete 
piece  of  bone,  whether  it  belonged  to  a  man  or  to  an 
ape.,,  The  most  casual  comparison  of  the  human 
skeleton  with  that  of  an  orang-outang,  one  of  the 
highest  apes,  discloses  such  extraordinary  differences 
in  the  formation  of  the  trunk  and  extremities  as  to 
make  description  wholly  unnecessary. 

The  difference  between  the  skulls  of  the  higher  apes 
and  man,  including  all  the  Neanderthals,  is  most  start- 
ling when  we  consider  that  the  evolutionist  has  wasted 
so  many  years  in  trying  to  point  out  resemblances  be- 
tween them. 

Even  Darwin  himself  (" Descent  of  Man,"  Appleton, 
1920,  p.  65)  was  bewildered  by  the  gulf  of  difference 
between  man  and  the  lower  animals.  "No  doubt,"  he 
writes,  "the  difference  is  enormous,  even  if  we  com- 
pare the  mind  of  one  of  the  lowest  savages  with  that 
of  the  most  highly  organized  ape.  The  difference 
would  still  remain  immense  even  if  one  of  the  highest 
apes  had  been  improved  as  much  as  a  dog  in  compari- 
son with  wolf  or  jackal.  The  Fuegians  rank  amongst 
the  lowest  barbarians;  but  I  was  continually  struck 
with  surprise  how  closely  the  three  natives  on  board 
H.M.S.  Beagle  resembled  us  in  disposition  and  in  most 
of  our  mental  faculties."  Notwithstanding  this  differ- 
ence he  continues  to  argue  that  our  ancestors  have 
been  able  to  mount  from  the  brute  to  the  human  level. 
Concerning  these  Fuegians,  Haeckel  says  ("Wonders 
of  Life,"  1904):  "They  approach  close  to  the  an- 
thropoid apes."  Haeckel's  falsifications  turn  up  at 
all  points  where  they  can  be  expected  to  serve  his 
momentary  purposes.    No  other  scientist  has  so  spe- 


134  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

cialized  in  untruth.  No  other  scientist  has  exercised 
such  an  influence  on  the  corruptions  of  evolution. 

In  the  ape's  skull  the  brute  characteristics  are  enor- 
mous. The  lower  face  constitutes  the  bulk  of  the  whole 
head,  whereas  in  man  the  brain,  the  instrument  of  his 
spiritual  life,  is  of  vastly  greater  importance  than  his 
jaw.  A  comparison  of  the  two  should  forever  end  the 
fantastic  descriptions  of  the  evolutionary  zoologist, 
who  never  rests  in  his  zeal  to  fabricate  alleged  resemb- 
lances. See  0.  Walkhoff,  "Biolog.  Zentralblatt, ' ' 
1905,  No.  6,  pp.  182-184,  and  J.  Ranke,  "Der  Mensch," 
vol.  1,  pp.  437-444 ;  vol.  2,  pp.  3-203. 

Professor  Oscar  Schmidt  ("  Descent  and  Darwin- 
ism/ '  1896,  pp.  289-290)  says:  "In  the  ape  the  three 
bones  forming  the  axis  of  the  skull,  the  basi-occipital 
bone  and  the  two  sphenoid  bones,  lie  almost  in  a  line, 
whereas  in  man  there  is  a  double  flexure  of  this  axis ; 
moreover,  in  the  apes  the  angles  increase  with  age, 
which  in  man  decrease,  and  vice  versa.  Likewise  in 
man  the  occipital  foramen  becomes  more  horizontal 
with  age,  more  vertical  in  the  ape.  The  two  series,  ape 
and  man,  diverge  from  one  another.  The  ape,  as  he 
grows,  becomes  more  beastly,  man  more  human.  The 
flexure  of  the  basal  bone  and  the  horizontal  position 
of  the  occipital  foramen  occasions  the  upright  gait, 
wherewith  the  differentiation  between  hands  and  feet 
is  completed.  This  flexure  of  the  cranial  axis  may 
therefore  still  be  emphasized  as  a  human  character, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  ape. "  Schmidt,  it  must  be 
remembered,  speaks  not  only  as  a  professor  in  the 
University  of  Strasburg,  but  as  a  confirmed  evolu- 
tionist. 

For  a  refutation  of  the  points  of  evidence  based  on 
the  so-called  biogenetic  law,  heretofore  referred  to  as 
the  theory  of  Fritz  Miiller  so  highly  elaborated  by 
Ernst  Haeckel,  the  student  may  consult  Erich  Was- 


~    ~    G    -  ho 

m  O  -S  «J  •  6 

g  Sgg  '3d  h  2 

O  £  ~  -2  i  *- 

«      2  fl  • 

£  S  g  = 

-^   cd    7    j;  r 

-  I 

g    ©            -  "" 

o  L  =   S  E 

£5     -   _2    +J  DO 


L 

H      -  ' 

.x   ; 

—  — 

0 

:. 

•— 

■— 

—  a 

Z   .-. 

- 

— 

— 

—     ^- 

■— 

-    : 

_ 

r 

* 

». 

r  55 

+*  «H    C 

-_-     —     - 

—  .-     - 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  135 

mann,  "Modern  Biology, "  pp.  446-462.  The  whole 
subject,  despite  the  long  and  persistent  effort  to  give 
it  dignity,  is  so  far-fetched,  so  contradictory  and  bo  >«  It- 
destructive  as  to  be  scarcely  worth  passing  mention. 
An  instance  is  sufficient  to  disclose  the  general  nature 
of  the  "proofs''  which  it  presents  in  its  demonstra- 
tions of  man's  descent  from  the  ape. 

The  formation  of  the  placenta  is  regarded  as  one  of 
its  most  convincing  points  of  evidence.  In  the  mono- 
tremes,  spiny  ant-eater  and  duck-bill,  which  are  the 
lowest  mammals,  the  placenta  is  entirely  absent,  It 
is  not  even  present  in  rudiment  for  the  reason  that 
there  can  be  no  rudiment  of  that  which  never  had  ex- 
istence. Here  evolution  misses  a  most  important  cog 
and  the  biogenetic  law  receives  a  staggering  blow. 

In  the  marsupials  the  placenta  occurs  but  rarely  and 
in  a  very  imperfect  form,  yet  all  the  higher  mammals 
are  called  placentals  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
monotremes  and  the  marsupials  which,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, are  also  mammals. 

If  the  higher  mammals  are  distinguished  by  a  pla- 
centa which  the  lower  mammals  lack,  what  is  to  be 
said  of  the  smooth  shark  complication?  Perhaps  the 
smooth  shark,  which  is  a  fish,  is  in  the  direct  line  of 
man's  descent  because  it  possesses  a  placenta.  Man 
by  turn,  is  a  true  ape,  a  true  goat,  a  true  sheep,  a  true 
horse,  a  true  ass,  why,  also,  is  he  not  a  true  shark? 
The  placenta  is  a  strong  argument  in  that  direction 
and  it  would  appear  that  the  genus  "profiteer'  pos- 
sesses manv  characteristics  in  common  with  the  smooth 
shark.  Certainly  he  is  "smooth,"  and  there  are  few 
indeed  who  fail  to  recognize  him  as  a  "shark. ' ' 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  marsupials  and 
monotremes  are  placenta-less,  as  discovered  by  Aris- 
totle and  confirmed  by  Johannes  Muller  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  a  placenta  occurs  in  the  smooth  shark 


136  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

which,  let  us  repeat,  is  not  now  a  mammal  and  never 
was  one. 

As  reported  by  Wasmann,  recent  research  reveals 
the  presence  of  a  placenta  even  in  some  Arthropods. 
Kennel  has  discovered  it  in  the  American  Peripatas 
and  Poljansky  described  it  in  the  Indian  scorpion 
(Zoolog.  Anzeiger,  1903,  No.  2,  pp.  49-58).  This  dem- 
onstrates that  either  the  existence  of  a  placenta  has 
nothing  to  do  with  any  direct  relationship  between 
any  of  these  animals,  or  it  compels  us  to  accept  the 
theory  that  THE  INDIAN  SCORPION  IS  THE  AN- 
CESTOR OF  ALL  THE  PLACENTAL  MAMMALS, 
INCLUDING  MAN! 


CHAPTER  XI 
H.  G.  Wells 

Repeating  old  tales — Reverence  for  bones — God   and   the   sacraments — 
The  wild  women  of  Wells — Wells'  mutilation  of  Wells. 

As  if  in  defiance  of  all  the  palaeontological  and  zoo- 
logical evidence  to  the  contrary,  H.  G.  Wells  devotes 
103  pages,  vol.  1,  "Outline  of  History,' '  to  an  elab- 
orate moving  picture  of  man's  descent  from  the  ape. 
His  "logic"  is  a  thing  of  awe  and  wonder.  He  elaboi 
ates  exactly  ninety-six  premises  for  his  conclusion  "it. 
follows,  therefore.' '  These  ninety-six  steps  of  depar- 
ture establish  a  new  system  in  the  tracery  of  deduc- 
tion. There  can  be  no  more  adequate  or  accurate 
method  of  describing  an  object  than  the  exhibition  of 
the  object  itself.  Therefore,  Wells'  ninety-six  steps, 
in  the  form  of  the  very  phrases  he  employs,  are  lifted 
from  his  stairway  of  "reason"  without  alteration, 
mutilation  or  change  of  any  kind.    Here  they  are : 

Phrases  Used  Number  of  Times 

Is  probably  or  was  probably 20 

It  must  have  been  12 

It  would  seem  11 

It  may  have  been 9 

May  or  may  not 8 

Perhaps    5 

It  seems  to  be 5 

It  is  probable 4 

Possibly    3 

We  may  guess 3 

137 


138  GOD— OK  GORILLA 

Phrases  Used  Number  of  Times 

So  far  as  we  can  guess 1 

This  is  pure  guessing,  of  course 1 

It  is  supposed  .  . .  > ,. .  1 

They  suppose  ....,..,.  1 

If  we  assume . . . . .i. .  1 

It  appears  to  be i. . . .  1 

It  is  possible >• . .  .i 1 

It  may  be  possible 1 

It  is  doubtful 1 

It  is  commonly  asserted ,. .  1 

Almost  certainly 1 

Are  said  to  be 1 

Whole  story  is  fogged 1 

As  yet  we  do  not  know 1 

Confessedly  jumbled 1 

Inextricably  mixed  up 1 

This  halting,  faltering,  stumbling  gait  is  dignified 
by  Wells'  admirers  as  the  logical  stride  of  science 
from  pure  hypothesis  to  "it  follows,  therefore."  Con- 
scious always  of  the  uncertainty,  the  fog,  the  darkness, 
the  jumble,  the  inextricable  mix-up  through  which  he 
plods,  Wells  nevertheless  is  determined  to  get  to  man's 
ancestor,  the  lemur,  as  quickly  as  possible. 

The  Piltdown  jaw  bone  and  the  Piltdown  cranium 
are  in  his  way  and  must  be  disposed  of.  Wells  wants 
to  believe  that  jaw  bone  and  cranium  belonged  to  a 
"first-man"  because  their  resemblance,  as  patched  up 
by  reconstructionists  whose  reconstructions  couldn't 
stand  the  strain  imposed  on  them,  is  strong  enough  to 
give  a  sort  of  starch  stiffening  to  the  so  much  desired 
conclusion  that  man  and  monkey  were  alike  back 
there  when  the  early  sub-man  played  jackal  to  the 
sabre-toothed  tiger,  finishing  up  the  carcasses  on  which 
the  latter  had  gorged  itself. 

But  Wells,  alarmed  by  the  exposure  of  the  Piltdown 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  139 

trick,  and  worried  by  the  fact  that  he  has  on  his  hands 
nothing  but  a  first-class  forgery,  is  further  warned  by 
his  friend,  Professor  Lankester,  that  he  "is  stumped 
and  baffled!"  So  with  the  charm  of  one  who  coyly 
averts  embarrassment  by  way  of  the  diplomatic  route 
he  repeats  the  dictum  of  Sir  Ray  Lankester:  "The 
most  prudent  way  is  to  keep  the  jaw  and  the  cranium 
apart  in  all  argument  about  them."  (See  "The  Out- 
line of  History,"  MacMillan,  1920,  pp.  73-74.) 

Could  anything  be  more  delightful,  more  naive,  more 
ingenuous?  Found  together,  these  two  bones  must  now 
be  kept  apart  unless  it  be  granted  as  a  matter  of  pru- 
dence, that  the  brute-bone  be  man-bone  or  the  man- 
bone  brute-bone,  with  man  and  brute  more  nearly  re- 
lated than  Tweedle-dee  and  Tweedle-dum. 

Reverence  for  Bones 

Elsewhere  Wells  warmly  affirms  that  "upon  these 
fragile  Piltdown  fragments  alone  more  than  a  hun- 
dred books,  pamphlets  and  papers  have  been  written. 
These  scraps  of  bone  are  guarded  more  carefully  from 
theft  and  wilful  damage  than  the  most  precious  jewels, 
and  in  the  museum  cases  one  sees  only  carefully  exe- 
cuted facsimiles." 

Many  are  the  scoffers,  including  Wells  himself,  who 
laugh  at  humans  for  reverencing  the  bones  of  saints. 
Thus  science  is  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  defin- 
ing the  difference  between  reverence  for  saint  relics 
and  reverence  for  monkey  relics.  What  a  precious 
heritage!  What  jealous  guardiansJiij)!  }\liat  sen 
tific  piety  and  devotion!    To  tvliat  a  nolle  j>u >}><>*<  ! 

Acquiring  boldness,  Wells  dismisses  the  obstacles 
that  have  all  but  crushed  him  and  announces  that  tin* 
Piltdown  man,  like  the  Heidelberg  man  and  the  Nean- 
derthal man,  "may  have  had  a  very  big  body  and  l;u 


140  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

forelimbs.  He  may  have  been  a  wholly  strange-look- 
ing creature. 

"The  sub-human  running  apes  and  sub-men,  if  they 
were  not  on  the  line  royal,  were  on  a  very  close  col- 
lateral. The  sub-men  were  running  about  Europe 
four  or  five  hundred  thousand  years  ago.  Our  ances- 
tor was  a  beast,  not  a  man;  not  an  arboreal  ape  like 
the  chimpanzee.  Our  ancestor  was  a  walking  ape  scat- 
tering stone  tools  over  the  world. " 

Wells  indicates  that  he  has  arrived  at  this  knowledge 
by  reason  of  the  ninety-six  steps  that  have  led  him  to 
it.  There  is  no  "maybe"  or  "perhaps"  about  his  posi- 
tive and  emphatic  emphasis  which  he  refuses  to  admit 
is  quite  as  wobbly  as  the  wobbly  premises  on  which  he 
sets  it  up. 

Strange  to  what  depths  of  dogma  the  anti-dogmatist 
may  descend !  Does  Wells  have  no  enlightened  mo- 
ments at  all?  Oh,  yes.  He  has  them.  Listen  to  this. 
"We  find  fossils  of  monkeys  and  lemurs,"  he  says, 
"but  of  one  particular  creature  we  have  as  yet  not  a 
single  bone." 

Is  he  perturbed  by  lack  of  bones?  By  no  means. 
He  goes  on  without  transition  or  a  single  bone  precise- 
ly as  follows:  "It  was  half-ape,  half -monkey.  (Per- 
haps Wells  means  half -ape,  half -man).  It  clambered 
about  the  trees  and  ran,  and  probably  ran  well,  on  its 
hind  legs  upon  the  ground.  It  was  small-brained  by  our 
present  standards,  but  it  had  clever  hands  with  which 
it  handled  fruit  and  beat  nuts  upon  the  rocks  and  per- 
haps caught  up  sticks  and  stones  to  smite  its  fellows. 
IT  WAS  OUR  ANCESTOR." 

What  has  become  of  all  the  facts?  Evolution  has 
developed  Wells,  the  novelist,  into  Wells,  the  scientist, 
and  subsequently  into  Wells,  the  historian,  all  of  which, 
of  course,  has  taken  place  after  "lungs  were  launched 
into  the  world."     Thus  comes  the  historical  picture 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  141 

limned  with  a  scientific  brush  in  which  we  can  sop  lum- 
bering into  the  foreground  the  Neanderthal  man  who 
"wouldn't  allow  any  other  adult  male  in  the  group. 
He  is  surrounded  by  women,  boys  and  i^irls.  When 
the  boys  are  big  enough  to  rouse  his  jealousy  he  falls 
foul  of  them  and  kills  them  off."  But  let  Wells  de- 
scribe the  picture.  These  are  his  words  concerning 
this  rotten  meat  eater:  "When  he  found  dead  ani- 
mals, semi-putrid,  he  would  relish  them  none  the  less. 
He  would  eat  his  unhealthy  children.  He  would  seek 
larger  animals  in  a  weak  and  dying  state.  Failing  to 
find  them,  dead  and  half  rotten  examples  would  be 
made  to  suffice." 

God  and  the  Sacraments 

Stiff  stench  was  highly  favored!  "In  fact,'  de- 
clares Wells,  "unpleasant  odors  are  not  objectionable 
now  in  many  continental  hotels,  and  the  taste  for  half- 
putrid  game  still  survives."  This  Neanderthal  male- 
killer  was  known  as  the  "Old  Man."  As  the  weaker 
members  of  the  tribe  had  to  worship  him  they  devel- 
oped the  evolutionary  conception  of  God.  Wells  quotes 
"authorities"  to  prove  this!  See  "Outline  of  His- 
tory,," vol.  1,  p.  131. 

Wells  does  not  like  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  idea 
that  originally  man,  endowed  with  free  will  and  a 
sense  of  moral  responsibility,  could  have  fallen  from 
grace.  Man  could  never  have  fallen.  He  was  always 
coming  up.  Wells  doesn't  like  the  idea,  shared  in 
common  by  Jews  and  Christians,  that  into  the  body  of 
the  first  man,  whom  Wells  does  not  call  Adam,  God 
breathed  an  immortal  soul.  "And  the  Lord  God 
formed  man  of  the  slime  of  the  earth:  and  breathed 
in\to  his  face  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living 
soid." 


142  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Wells  does  not  like  the  idea  that  from  a  state  of 
grace  man  fell  after  he  had  been  endowed  with  a  free 
will  to  do  good  or  evil  as  he  might  see  fit.  Wells  does 
not  like  the  Incarnation,  the  Atonement,  the  Resur- 
rection. He  dismisses  Christ  altogether.  In  his  ape- 
man  pedigree  there  is  no  place  for  Christ.  He  will 
accept  none  of  the  clear  and  uncompromising  demands 
made  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth  for  an  absolute  faith  in 
Himself.  The  Son  of  Man  is  to  be  described,  if  de- 
scribed at  all,  as  the  Son  of  Ape. 

Wells  describes  the  evolution  of  the  ape-man's  con- 
ception of  a  "  Sacrament "  as  the  killing  of  sub-men  at 
seed  time  in  order  to  prepare  a  ceremonial  feast  in 
which  the  tribe  eats  portions  of  the  body  of  the  pre- 
human victim  so  as  to  share  in  the  sacrificial  benefits. 
See  " Outline  of  History,"  vol.  1,  pp.  130-131. 

From  his  heap  of  rejected  reconstructions  Wells 
cries  out:  "Man  at  that  time  was  not  a  DEGRADED 
animal  for  he  had  never  been  higher.  He  was,  there- 
fore, an  exalted  animal,  and,  low  as  we  esteem  him 
now,  he  yet  presented  the  highest  stage  of  development 
of  the  animal  kingdom  of  his  time." 

The  Wild  Women  of  Wells 

After  his  exalted  Neanderthal  man,  Wells  introduces 
his  still  more  exalted  Palaeolithic  man.  This  was  the 
fellow  who,  says  Wells,  "  drove  the  Neanderthal  man 
from  his  stone  quarries  and  refused  to  take  the  women 
of  the  defeated  or  to  interbreed  with  them.  There  is 
no  trace,"  he  argues,  "of  any  intermixture  between 
the  races."  Obviously  he  is  unacquainted  with  the 
scientific  facts  recorded  here,  yet  they  were  as  readily 
available  to  him  as  to  the  writer. 

Has  he  an  explanation  for  his  assertions  ?  Of  course 
he  has.    Meditate  upon  it  if  you  would  realize  the  ex* 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  143 

tent  to  which  the  "scientific  evolutionist"  tends  to  mis- 
direct the  bark  of  truth  into  forlorn  courses. 

The  Palaeolithic  men  refused  to  mate  with  the  Nean- 
derthal women  because  those  women  "were  extremely 
hairy,  ugly,  of  a  repulsive  strangeness  in  appearance, 
with  low  foreheads,  beetle  brows,  ape  necks  and  infe- 
rior stature,  too  fierce  to  tame." 

There  was  no  stopping  at  rotten  meat  or  the  eating 
of  sick  children,  but  when  it  came  to  those  wild  women 
— alas,  alas!  Why,  indeed,  should  the  descendants  of 
such  beasts  yield  reverence  to  Moses  or  Christ?  Why 
should  there  be  such  speculation  concerning  an  immor- 
tal soul,  a  future  life?  Why  should  the  ouija  board  or 
the  spiritist  be  worked  overtime  by  the  lineal  offspring 
of  the  lemur?  Why  should  men  respect  the  command- 
ment— "Thou  shalt  not  kill" — or  any  of  the  other 
commandments  now  held  in  such  contempt  in  a  world 
in  which  killing,  lynching,  rape  and  graft  can  have 
no  terror  for  the  progeny  of  apes?  Why  meditate  on 
chastity,  mercy,  justice,  benevolence,  honesty,  truth? 
Why  not  take?    Why  not  kill? 

All  man's  discoveries  and  inventions,  metallurgy, 
physics,  mechanics,  mathematics,  astronomy,  chemis- 
try, electricity,  bacteriology,  have  sprung  from  no  di- 
vine intelligence  in  man,  made  in  the  image  and  like- 
ness of  God,  but  from  his  own  brute  dirtiness.  Thomas 
Carlyle  thundered  against  this  idea.  That  it  has  been 
revived  is  but  another  instance  of  periodicity. 

"Men,"  says  Wells,  "got  copper  from  ore  by  the 
chance  putting  of  lumps  of  ore  among  the  ordinary 
stones  with  which  they  built  the  fire  pits  they  used 
for  cooking.  In  China,  Hungary,  Cornwall  and  else- 
where copper-ore  and  tin-stone  occur  in  the  same  vein  ; 
it  is  a  very  common  association,  and  so  rather  through 
dirtiness  than  skill  the  ancient  smelters  hit  upon  Die 
harder  and  better  bronze." 


144  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

As  a  "historian"  Wells  is  very  sure  of  himself  in 
other  "scientific"  matters  that  have  no  science  in  them. 
"The  Neolithic  men,"  he  says,  "made  exceedingly 
solid  and  heavy  bread.  Apparently  they  had  no  yeast. 
If  they  had  no  yeast  they  had  no  fermented  drinks." 

He  might  have  said :  "If  they  had  no  fruits  or  fruit 
juices  they  had  no  fermented  drinks."  It  wasn't  nec- 
essary to  have  a  cake  of  yeast  to  make  fermented  wine 
from  the  juice  of  the  grape  or  from  the  juice  of  any 
other  fruit.  But  perhaps  they  had  no  pots  in  which  to 
put  the  fruit  juice  from  which  wine  is  made. 

But  they  did  have  pots.  Wells  presents  pictures  of 
their  pottery  and  says :    ' '  They  stored  grains  in  pots. ' ' 

Had  they  stored  fruit  juice  in  the  same  pots  they 
couldn't  have  avoided  wine  for  the  reason  that  they 
couldn't  have  stopped  the  fermentation.  Yeast  was  in 
the  air,  for  yeast,  according  to  Wells  himself,  was 
among  the  first  forms  of  plant  life  antedating  animal 
life  on  this  planet  by  ever  so  many  millions  and  mil- 
lions of  years. 

"They  ate  no  poultry  or  hen's  eggs,"  he  announces 
with  scientific  assurance,  and  to  prove  his  statement 
he  informs  us  that  "the  hen  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament."  Perhaps  if  he  were  to  refer  to  the 
third  Book  of  Kings,  fourth  chapter,  twenty-third  verse 
(which  is  certainly  in  the  Old  Testament)  he  would 
discover  the  reference  to  the  fatted  fowl  that  were 
served  to  Solomon  a  thousand  years  before  Christ. 

Who  will  explain  the  enthusiasm  of  educated  men 
upon  the  appearance  of  Wells'  history,  including  its 
ape-men,  yeast,  wine,  bread,  eggs,  hens  and  the  Old 
Testament,  to  his  ignorance  of  which  he  appeals  in 
this  astounding  manner?  It  wasn't  so  long  ago  that 
educated  men  accepted  with  paeans  of  praise  the  as- 
tounding "discovery"  of  Dr.  Friedmann,  whose  "tur- 
tle serum  cure  for  tuberculosis ' '  is  now  never  heard  of. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  145 

It  wasn't  so  long  ago  that  educated  men,  including 
the  deans  of  universities,  grave  and  reverend  seniors, 
representatives  of  scientific  bodies,  together  with  the 
crowned  heads  of  empires,  with  lavish  eulogies  accept- 
ed as  "established"  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole 
by  Dr.  Cook,  banqueting  that  gentleman  with  mock 
turtle  soup  and  Burgundy. 

There  was  a  suggestion  of  plausibility  behind  the 
Cook  assertions,  but  suggestions  of  plausibility  never 
constitute  fact.  There  is  a  suggestion  of  plausibility 
in  every  hypothesis,  but  a  fact  and  a  hypothesis  are 
not  the  same  thing.  A  hypothesis  may  break  down  al- 
together at  the  very  outset;  a  fact  goes  right  on  to  the 
end. 

Wells'  Mutilations  of  Wells 

Apparently  much  that  was  said  in  The  Outline  of 
History,  as  originally  published  in  two  volumes,  was 
hypothetical,  although  uttered  as  fact.  Perhaps  the 
shadows  of  hypothesis  fell  too  heavily  upon  that  first 
edition  which  so  solemnly  explained  man's  mysterious 
origin,  his  evolutionary  progress  and  his  sublimated 
simian  destiny,  for  now  very  much  of  those  first  two 
volumes  has  been  broken  down — by  Wells  himself. 

The  new  Outline  of  History,  revised  and  rearranged 
by  the  author,  and  known  as  the  third  (American)  edi- 
tion, does  not  take  his  readers  into  his  confidence 
through  any  disclosure  of  the  nature  or  extent  of  the 
alterations  made  by  Wells,  the  evolutionist,  on  the 
work  of  Wells,  the  historian,  and  vice  versa. 

How  much  Wells,  the  evolutionist,  has  added  to  the 
knowledge  of  Wells,  the  historian,  or  to  what  condition 
the  opinions  of  Wells,  the  historian,  have  been  reduced 
by  Wells,  the  evolutionist,  or  to  what  extent  the  con- 
victions of  Wells  in  either  role  have  been  subjected  to 
mutilation,  the  author  gives  no  hint. 


146  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Possibly  a  professor  here  or  there  may  have  whis- 
pered to  a  professor  there  or  here  that  the  Wells'  chron- 
ology of  early  Egypt  had  been  plucked  out  of  old  books 
no  longer  regarded  by  scholars  as  authoritative.  One 
might  easily  arrive  at  such  an  inference  when  one  re- 
members that  the  Darwinian  books  which  have  had 
such  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  author  of  The  Out- 
line of  History  have  been  shelved  and  abandoned. 

At  any  rate,  in  the  new  edition  Wells  confesses  that 
Egyptian  chronology  is  " still  a  matter  of  discussion.' ' 
He  makes  no  such  confession  with  respect  to  evolution, 
although  from  the  revision  and  rearrangement  so  many 
statements,  which  formerly  decorated  the  original 
work,  have  been  dropped,  that  the  student  of  evolution 
who  would  wallow  through  the  confusion  evolved 
through  these  surgical  operations  might  do  well  not  to 
trust  his  passage  too  far  without  a  searchlight. 

One  could  ask  Wells  why  he  has  omitted  his  earlier 
note  on  Professor  BurrelPs  contribution  to  the  Yale 
lectures,  * '  The  Evolution  of  the  Earth  and  Its  Inhabi- 
tants," which  adorned  p.  6,  vol.  1  of  the  first  edition. 
Why  has  he  omitted  all  reference  to  Sir  William  Daw- 
son \s  Canadian  dawn-animal  (Eozoon  Canadense), 
now  regarded  not  as  the  fossil  vestiges  of  once  living 
things  which  have  long  since  vanished  from  the  earth, 
but  as  mere  crystalline  markings  in  the  Canadian  rock 
formations  in  which  they  are  found?  The  discarding 
of  all  reference  to  this  overworked  fossil  f oily*  as  found 
vol.  1,  p.  9,  is  either  significant  or  it  is  not  significant. 
In  the  former  case,  was  Wells  sure  of  his  ground?  In 
the  latter,  is  he  not  so  sure? 

Why  has  he  rejected  his  "torn,  disrupted,  inter- 
rupted, fmng-about,  defaced  Record  of  the  Rocks," 
and  upon  whose  advice,  and  for  what  reason  has  he 
flung  overboard  the  whole  of  page  12,  vol.  1? 

Why  has  he  amputated  his  former  references  to 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  147 

Lord  Kelvin  and  Professor  Huxley,  whose  variegated 
guesses  as  to  the  age  of  the  earth  are  separated  by  a 
gap  of  375,000,000  years?  Why  has  he  dropped  Pro- 
fessor Osborn's  guess  and  all  other  guesses  that  clash 
with  the  racing  speed  and  evolutionary  purpose  of  his 
tale?  The  fact  is  that  all  these  guesses,  originally 
found  in  vol.  1,  p.  13,  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  revised 
edition  at  all. 

Why  has  he  forsaken  the  whole  of  Chapter  V,  in 
which  he  instructed  us  in  "Why  life  must  change  con 
tinually ' '  ?    Why  does  he  now  say : ' '  We  cannot  discn 
fully  here  the  changes  that  have  gone  on  and  are  going 
on  in  the  climate  of  the  earth/ '  when  these  changes  are 
precisely  what  he  did  discuss  in  vol.  1,  pp.  29  to  38? 

Why  does  he  give  us  an  entirely  new  theme  to  brood 
over  when,  in  the  revised  edition,  p.  38,  with  no  thought 
of  Hades  in  his  mind,  he  says:  "We  may  be  moving 
now  towards  a  warmer  place.' '  True,  he  adds,  "half 
a  million  years  hence  this  may  be  a  much  sunnier  and 
pleasanter  world  to  live  in  than  it  is  today.'  Many 
changes  may  take  place  within  the  next  half  a  million 
years,  and  as  an  evolutionist  one  is  quite  safe  in  haz- 
arding a  whole  scow-load  of  prophesies,  the  fulfilment 
of  which  is  to  be  so  comfortably  postponed.  But  with 
respect  to  what  is  actually  going  on  in  the  world  here 
and  now,  Wells  has  stumbled  awkwardly  through  a 
prophetic  vision  that  refused,  as  the  sporting  writers 
would  say,  to  run  true  to  the  dope  sheets.  In  his  first 
edition  he  was  sure  that  the  Soviets  of  modern  Russia 
were  destined  to  control  that  distracted  country.  In 
the  revised  edition  he  is  forced  to  admit  that  "the 
Soviets  have  little  or  no  real  directive  power. ' 

He  exhibits  evidence  in  the  revised  edition  that  as  an 
orthodox  evolutionist  he  is  rather  muddled  about  the 
evolution  formula  to  which  he  clings  tenaciously  in  ac 
cepting  the  dictum  that  "evolution  demands  diminu- 


148  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tive  beginnings, ' '  insisting,  for  instance,  that  the  first 
horse,  Eohippus,  was  smaller  than  a  squirrel,  becoming 
through  successively  larger  stages  through  millions  of 
years  of  evolution  the  full-fledged  creature  now  rapidly 
evolving  into  a  gas-eating  jitney. 

Wells  seems  to  assume  that  while  the  horse,  con- 
forming with  evolutionary  demands,  was  gradually 
growing  larger,  the  dog  was  wholly  ignoring  these  de- 
mands by  gradually  growing  smaller.  He  says,  re- 
vised edition,  p.  43:  "In  pursuit  of  such  beasts  came 
great  swarms  of  primitive  dogs,  some  as  big  as  bears.' ' 
Perhaps  these  monster  dogs,  which  have  evoluted  into 
creatures  much  smaller  than  bears,  were  provided  with 
wings  like  bees.    How  else  could  they  have  swarmed ^ 

In  the  original,  vol.  1,  p.  57,  Wells  describes  the 
small-brained  half -ape  half -monkey,  by  which  he  pos- 
sibly meant  a  half-anthropoid  without  a  tail  and  a 
half-pithecoid  with  a  tail.  Ever  so  positively,  whatever 
his  meaning,  with  tail  or  without,  he  said,  as  has  been 
noted  elsewhere:  "It  was  our  ancestor.' ' 

Why  does  he  now  abandon  this  assertion,  substitut- 
ing in  the  revised  edition  for  the  old  phrase,  "It  was 
our  ancestor,"  an  entirely  new  phrase:  "Spite  of  the 
lack  of  material  evidence,  the  facts  of  biological  science 
almost  compel  us  to  believe  that  such  a  creature 
existed." 

Does  Wells  mean  that  if  it  did  exist  it  was  our 
ancestor,  or  that  if  it  didn't  exist  it  wasn't  our  an- 
cestor, in  which  latter  case  we  shall  have  to  look  for 
some  other  kind  of  ancestor?  His  use  of  that  word 
"almost,"  in  the  phrase  "almost  compel  us  to  be- 
lieve," suggests  the  squatting  of  a  doubt  where  once 
stood  certainty  erect.  Whence  came  that  doubt? 
There  is  no  answer. 

Why,  from  the  original  edition,  does  he  throw  out 
the  whole  of  Section  5,  Chapter  VIII,  with  its  awkward 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  149 

contradictions  growing  out  of  Sir  Ray  Lankester's 
letter  on  the  Piltdown  jaw  bone.  This  striking  omission 
is  accompanied  by  another  omission  equally  striking. 
In  the  new  edition  there  is  no  mention  of  the  fact, 
recorded  in  the  old,  that  G.  S.  Miller,  the  American 
anthropologist,  had  concluded  that  the  Piltdown  jaw 
bone  never  was  the  jaw  bone  of  a  human  being  for  the 
very  good  reason  that  it  was  always  the  jaw  bone  of  a 
chimpanzee. 

Such  contrasts  must  ever  make  one  marvel  over  the 
agility  of  the  evolutionist  in  pruning  his  geological 
tree  or  in  grafting  upon  it,  according  to  the  capricious 
demands  of  this  or  that  edition.  In  the  original,  vol.  1, 
p.  88,  Wells  stumbled  into  a  frank  moment  which  took 
expression  worthy  of  note.  "Now  here  again,"  he 
said,  "with  every  desire  to  be  plain  and  explicit  with 
the  reader,  we  have  still  to  trouble  him  with  qualified 
statements  and  notes  of  interrogation.  There  is  now 
an  enormous  literature  about  these  earliest  true  men, 
the  men  of  the  Later  Palaeolithic  Age,  and  it  is  still  for 
the  general  reader  a  very  confusing  literature  indeed. 
It  is  confusing  because  it  is  still  confused  at  its  source. ' ' 

Why,  from  the  revised  edition,  has  he  deleted  this 
confession  of  confusion?  Is  he  any  the  less  confused? 
If  so,  why  has  he  not  shared  the  increasing  clarity  of 
his  mind  with  his  reader?  Does  not  greater  confusion 
rise  from  the  suppression  of  the  evidence  of  con- 
fusion? 

But  he  goes  on  (in  the  original)  to  say:  "The  whole 
story  is  further  fogged  at  present  by  our  inability  to 
distinguish,  in  the  absence  of  skeletons,  which  race  has 
been  at  work  in  any  particular  case.  The  honest  an- 
swer is:  As  yet  we  do  not  know.  Confessedly  our 
account  is  a  jumbled  account,  inextricably  mixed  up. ' 
Why  (in  the  revised  edition)  has  he  blotted  out  all 
these  references  to  fog,  confusion,  and  honest  answers? 


150  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Is  it  that  he  feels  the  revision  will  be  regarded  as  more 
honest  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  smothers  such 
hints  of  honesty? 

Furthermore,  in  another  odd  moment  of  doubt  and 
insecurity?  he  says  in  the  original,  vol.  1,  p.  96:  "We 
may  very  well  be  dealing  with  the  work  of  more  or  less 
contemporary  and  different  races  when  we  think  we 
are  dealing  with  successive  ones."  Why,  in  the  re- 
vision, has  he  used  the  knife  on  this  confession  of  un- 
certainty? 

In  the  original  he  accounts  for  the  evolution  of 
agriculture  on  the  ground  that  strong  winds  blew  the 
grain  out  of  primitive  man's  rude  vessels  and  scattered 
it  while  he  was  digging  up  fresh  ground  to  make  a 
grave  for  a  corpse,  so  that,  returning  later  to  the  spot, 
an  exceptionally  vigorous  growth  of  food  grain  would 
be  discovered. 

The  revised  edition  abandons  this  quaint  idea.  The 
"exceptionally  vigorous  growth"  of  grain  sown  by 
accident  over  the  body  of  a  corpse  suggests  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  fertilizer  industry.  The  ordinary  growth 
of  grain  might  be  " vigorous,' '  but  grain,  springing 
from  ground  fertilized  by  a  corpse,  would  be  marked 
by  "an  exceptionally  vigorous  growth."  Such  proofs 
of  evolution  are  eloquent.  Why  has  Wells  abandoned 
them? 

In  the  original  Wells  describes  the  "Old  Man,"  the 
fierce  and  brutish  creature  who  fell  foul  of  his  own 
sons  when  they  grew  old  enough  to  excite  his  jealousy 
and  who  ate  his  own  children  when  they  were  sick. 
This  was  novelty  enough,  but  in  the  revised  edition,  in 
keeping  with  its  evolutionary  quality,  he  has  introduced 
another  novelty,  not,  apparently,  without  great  cer- 
tainty of  conviction,  considering  the  number  of  uncer- 
tainties that  have  been  rejected.  "More  human,"  he 
says,  "and  kindlier  was  the  Mother,  who  helped  and 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  151 

sheltered  and  advised.  The  psycho-analysis  of  Freud 
and  Jung  has  done  much  to  help  us  to  realize  Imw  greal 
a  part  Father  fear  and  Mother  love  still  play  in  the 
adaptation  of  the  human  mind  to  social  needs.  They 
have  made  an  exhaustive  study  of  childish  and  youthful 
dreams  and  imaginations,  a  study  which  has  done  much 
to  help  in  the  imaginative  (sic)  reconstruction  (sic)  of 
the  soul  (sic)  of  primitive  man.  Thus,"  he  conclude 
"the  Old  Man  mingled  with  his  fear  of  the  dangerous 
animals  about  him  but  the  women  goddesses  were 
kindly  and  more  subtle." 

Despite  the  influences  involved  in  the  phrase  "imag- 
inative reconstruction"  there  is  no  diagram  to  indicate 
what  all  this  signifies.  It  would  seem  to  be  merely 
new  and  more  certain  matter  substituted  for  old  re- 
jected uncertainties.  But  these  rejections  have  been 
shovelled  out  of  the  revision  in  such  wholesale  fashion 
that  one  scarcely  may  follow  them.  For  instance, 
while  the  pictures  in  the  new  edition  have  been  pre- 
served, all  references  to  the  stumbling  blocks  suggested 
by  the  old  subdivision  of  the  Caucasian  races  (vol.  1, 
pp.  142-146)  are  omitted.  Huxley's  belt  of  brown- 
skinned  men  (vol.  1,  p.  147)  is  also  omitted. 

What  purpose  was  thus  served  in  killing  off  the 
brown-skinned  men?  "It  may  clear  up  the  necessarily 
rather  confused  discussion  of  this  chapter,'  says 
Wells,  in  the  original,  "to  give  a  summary  of  the  views 
expressed  here  in  a  diagram."  The  diagram  is  given 
and  Wells  goes  on  at  considerable  length  to  interpret 
it.  In  the  revised  edition  all  hint  of  the  confusion 
of  discussion  has  been  silenced  and  the  whole  of  Sec- 
tion No.  5,  of  Chapter  XIII,  vol.  1,  is  missing. 

So  Wells  oscillates  back  and  forth  between  additions 
and  rejections,  yet  with  respect  to  the  scores  of  notes 
gracing  almost  every  other  page  of  the  original,  he  has 
assumed  a  granite-like  positiveness,  not  to  say  ruth- 


152  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

lessness,  of  purpose.  All  these  notes  have  been  lopped 
off  and  flung  out  so  that  the  reader  who  studies  the 
revised  edition,  without  the  original  beside  him,  can 
never  trace  Wells,  the  evolutionist,  or  Wells,  the  his- 
torian, to  the  long-since  abandoned  authorities  whom, 
like  fossil  vestiges,  he  has  dug  from  their  graves, 
flinging  their  unidentifiable  fragments  into  a  jumbled 
heap  which  an  awe-stricken  world  is  prone  to  char- 
acterize as  new  and  marvelous. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  one  who  for- 
merly was  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Wells,  turning 
sour.  Allen  Dawson,  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune, 
observed,  November  29,  1921:  "But  with  its  stricter 
sense  of  responsibility  our  London  contemporary  must 
have  been  in  a  mood  of  high  optimism  when  it  assumed 
that  Mr.  Wells  would,  or  even  could  be  fair. 

"His  popularity  as  a  writer  is  largely  due  to  his 
inability  to  see  two  sides  to  a  question.  He  is  a  bril- 
liant representative  of  the  not  unnumerous  class  of 
modern  writers  who  first  reach  a  dogmatic  conclusion 
agreeable  to  their  prejudices  and  then  scurry  around  to 
muster  support  for  it." 

Unfortunately  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  that,  not- 
withstanding the  clash  between  the  known  facts  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Wells  opinions  based  on  what  once 
were  thought  to  be  facts,  on  the  other,  his  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  readers  will  pause  to  consider  that  the 
old  sophistries  and  the  long-since  refuted  inferences 
are  really  not  a  marvelously  compact  evolutionary 
digest  of  biology,  zoology,  palaeontology,  sociology,  etc., 
but  rather  a  revamping  in  giddy  decorations  of  dead 
controversies  made  over  to  look  like  new. 


CHAPTER  XII 
Tricking  Huxley  and  the  World 

Tricking  Huxley  and  the  world — The  Osborn  conundrums. 

Professor  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn  knows  that  the 
"Propliopthecus  Haeckeli"  is  not  only  a  hypothetical 
creature  but  a  very  insincere  and  ridiculous  creature, 
yet  Professor  Osborn,  "informing"  the  school  chil- 
dren and  their  teachers  how  our  immediate  ancestors 
did  not  live  in  trees  but  how  a  million  years  back  of 
them  our  remote  ancestors,  pre-human  apes,  did  live 
in  trees,  refers  in  his  enlightening  panorama  of  pic- 
torial proof  to  the  "Propliopthecus  Haeckeli." 

It  is  admitted  that  Professor  Osborn  protects  him- 
self, but  only  against  the  careful  reader,  by  his  use 
of  the  word  "hypothetical"  in  describing  the  "missing 
link"  that  bears  HaeckePs  name. 

As  a  scientist  Professor  Osborn  must  know  that  in 
palaeontological  and  zoological  matters  children  are  not 
expected  to  be  super-critical  or  even  careful  readers. 
For  them  the  use  of  a  single  word  "hypothetical," 
tucked  away,  as  a  footnote,  in  small  type,  in  the  midst 
of  terrific  plaster  busts  of  apes,  ape-men,  sub-men  and 
true  men,  can  create  no  such  graphic  and  crushing  im- 
pression as  the  spectacular  series  of  awesome  brutes 
by  whom  the  one  grand  impression,  the  one  and  only 
impression,  the  obviously  desired  impression  is  made. 

What  do  the  school  children  know  of  Haeckel  and 
his  falsifications?  Even  Professor  Huxlcv  was  led  for 
a  time  to  accept  them  without  challenge.     Huxley  was 

153 


154  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

leaning  heavily  on  geological  supports  which,  because 
of  their  weakness,  were  in  danger  of  collapsing.  He 
needed  just  such  stuff  as  Haeckel's  to  hold  him  up. 

Among  Haeckel's  frauds  is  his  "Progonotexis  Ho- 
minis,"  published  in  honor  of  the  opening  of  the  new 
Phyletic  Museum  at  Jena,  1908.  In  the  text  all  the 
early  RACES  of  men  are  changed  into  so  many  SPE- 
CIES, but  on  the  pedigree  of  primates  they  appear 
again  as  RACES  not  as  SPECIES.  In  this  large  folio 
he  sets  against  the  ancestors  of  his  own  invention  in 
the  pedigree  of  man,  the  same  mark  that  he  uses 
against  the  fossil  forms  of  extinct  primates.  The  same 
little  cross  stands  beside  both  as  a  sign  that  both  are 
extinct.  Thus  his  purely  imaginary  forms  are  on  the 
same  level  of  dignity  with  real  fossils,  deceiving  his 
uncritical  reader  as  to  the  true  value  of  this  fabricated 
human  pedigree. 

As  early  as  1868  Rutimeyer,  the  Swiss  zoologist,  ac- 
cused Haeckel  of  tampering  with  his  illustrations.  In 
1874  the  anatomist,  Anton  His  of  Leipzig,  proved  the 
charges  of  tampering  to  be  irrefutable.  In  these  frauds 
Haeckel  caused  the  same  plate  to  be  printed  three  times 
in  his  ' '  History  of  Creation, ' '  declaring  that  the  illus- 
trations represented  three  distinct  objects  extremely 
like  one  another.  In  1906  the  charges  of  Professor 
Arnold  Brass  published  as  "  Ernst  Haeckel  als  Bio- 
loge  und  die  Wahrheit,"  against  Haeckel's  tampering 
with  the  illustrations  of  embryos  attracted  tremendous 
attention  in  Germany.  Again,  April  1,  1908,  in  an 
address  delivered  at  a  meeting  of  the  Christian  So- 
cialists in  Berlin,  Brass  renewed  his  attack  upon 
Haeckel  on  the  charge  of  having  falsified  the  pictures  of 
embryos.  Brass  showed  that  Haeckel  in  his  "  Anthro- 
pogeny,"  had  not  only  falsified  the  illustrations  of  em- 
bryos but  had  assigned  to  them  other  names  than 
those  they  had  originally  borne,  thereby  provoking 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  155 

Professor  Anton  His  to  declare  publicly  that  Eaeckel 

was  lying.     "I  can  make  these  charges,'    said   Brat 
"from  accurate  knowledge,  directly  acquired,  since  I 
myself  made  the  true  drawings  for  Haeckel." 

The  editors  of  the  Allgememe  Zeitung  wrote 
Haeckel,  offering  him  their  columns  for  a  short  reply 
to  the  attack  upon  him,  known  as  the  Tartu I'iV  attack, 
saying  that  they  had  printed  it  with  profound  regret 
though  they  had  been  compelled  to  do  so  because  it 
came  from  a  source  raised  high  above  doubt  botli  as  to 
scientific  knowledge  and  loyalty  to  German  science. 
Haeckel,  accusing  Dr.  Brass  of  "representing  the  Prot- 
estant Jesuits  of  the  Kepler  League,' '  refused  to  take 
advantage  of  the  Allgememe  Zeitung' 's  columns  to  de- 
fend himself.  He  says  ("Sandalion,'  English  trans- 
lation, 1910,  p.  16)  :  "Of  course  I  did  not  accept  the 
Allgememe  Zeitung's  offer  but  sent  my  reply  to  the 
Berlin  V  oiks  zeitung ,  the  editor  of  which  is  one  of  the 
few  liberal  newspaper  heads  who  have  worked  for 
the  advancement  and  application  of  the  doctrine  i 
evolution. ' ' 

Haeckel  replied  to  the  Brass  charges,  which  included 
an  analysis  of  Haeckel's  use  of  the  skeleton  of  the  gib- 
bon, orang,  chimpanzee,  gorilla  and  man  in  these 
words :  "These  tables  show  intentional  falsifications  to 
uphold  the  false  caption  (skeletons  of  the  five  anthro- 
poid apes).  "The  uprightness  of  man's  carriage  is 
concealed.  The  gorilla's  knee  has  been  pressed  to  make 
it  appear  to  be  standing  straight.  The  walking  pos- 
ture of  all  the  apes  is  false.  This  table  is  an  example 
of  how  Haeckel  misuses  the  works  of  other  people.]' 
Haeckel  asserted  that  if  he  were  to  be  accused  of  fal 
fying  the  illustrations  of  embryos  that  similar  accusa- 
tions must  be  brought  against  hundreds  of  other  high- 
ly respected  embryologists,  anatomists  and  zoologists, 
for  the  reason  that  they  all  practised  falsifications  as 


156  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

much  as  he  himself  and  had  in  many  ways  "schema- 
tized" their  illustrations. 

"By  ' schematized,'  "  he  explains,  "I  mean  I  omit- 
ted unessential  adjuncts  and  strongly  emphasized  es- 
sential form  relations.  I  also  filled  in  deficiencies  here 
and  there  by  comparative  syn theses.' ' 

This  was  confession  enough.  Certainly  it  contributes 
to  an  adequate  appreciation  of  the  sweeping  judgment 
rendered  by  Professor  Ch.  Deperet  ("Umbildung  der 
Tierwelt,"  p.  113):  "The  embryological  methods  of 
Haeckel  have  led  the  whole  of  palaeontological  research 
in  a  wrong  direction." 

In  the  Deutsche  Medizinische  Wochenschrift,  1909, 
Professor  Keibel  of  Freiburg  published  a  crushing 
criticism  of  Haeckel 's  falsifications.  As  to  whether 
they  were  falsifications  or  "inaccuracies"  an  illustra- 
tion will  disclose.  Haeckel  had  put  a  human  head  on 
an  ape  embryo,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Pro- 
fessor Brass  had  personally  shown  Haeckel  the  cor- 
rect illustration.  Haeckel  had  cut  off  the  tail  of  the 
embryo  of  a  macacus  (tailed  monkey)  and  turned  it 
into  a  tailless  ape  (gibbon).  He  could  hardly  have 
done  this  without  knowing  he  was  doing  it,  and  he 
would  have  indulged  in  no  such  "inaccuracies"  without 
a  deliberate  purpose.  Perhaps  we  can  suggest  that 
purpose. 

Haeckel 's  confession  that  "six  or  eight  per  cent." 
of  his  drawings  were  falsified  but  no  more  than  six  or 
eight  per  cent,  appeared  in  the  Berliner  Volkszeitung, 
December  29,  1908.  Haeckel  described  the  paper  as 
"liberal."  His  friend  Joseph  McCabe  (Haeckel 's 
Embryo  Drawings,  p.  37),  describes  the  Berliner 
Volkszeitung  as  "anti-clerical."  With  this  fact  in 
mind,  including  the  fact  of  Haeckel 's  refusal  to  defend 
himself  in  the  columns  of  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung,  we 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph   hij  Edwin   R.  Sanborn. 

Chimpanzee  with  arms  shaved.  Forced  to  sit  in  a  chair.  Note 
thumb  on  ''foot"  and  stump  of  thumb  on  hand.  Compare 
supra-orbital  ridges  and  ears  with   gorilla   and   orang. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  157 

are  prepared  to  step  beyond  the  bounds  of  eontrowr 
into  a  mass  of  facts  that  speak  for  themselves. 

Despite  all  the  evidence  to  the  contrary,  Haeckel  de- 
clares (Weltratsel,  p.  99)  :  "In  the  last  twenty  yea 
a  considerable  number  of  well  preserved  fossil  skele- 
tons of  anthropoid  and  other  apes  have  been  discovered, 
and  amongst  them  ARE  ALL  THE  IMPORTANT 
INTERMEDIATE  FORMS,  WHICH  CONSTITUTK 
A  SERIES  OF  ANCESTORS  CONNECTING  THE 
OLDEST  ANTHROPOID  APES  WITH  MAN." 

When  Haeckel  wrote  that  passage  he  knew  that  not 
only  was  there  no  such  series  in  existence,  but  that 
there  was  not  a  single  fossil  fragment  of  a  series  in 
existence.    The  falsehood  was  deliberate. 

So,  too,  was  the  falsehood  of  his  "Anthropogeny," 
exposed  by  Professor  Mimes  Marshall.  In  true  Haeck- 
elian  style  the  human  embryo  as  described  by  the 
Jena  mutilator  was  shown  to  be  a  description  of  the 
embryos  of  dogs,  pigs,  rabbits,  even  chickens  and  dog- 
fish. Such  were  the  frauds  which  the  apostle  of  evolu- 
tion did  not  hesitate  to  present  to  the  world  as  "evi- 
dence" for  "Darwinism."  See  Nature,  March  24, 
1892,  also  this  work,  pp.  52  and  117.  In  the  writer's 
study  of  the  chimpanzee  at  the  Bronx  Zoo,  New  York 
City,  the  conclusion  was  inescapable  that  this  great 
ape,  like  the  gorilla,  gibbon,  etc.,  never  had  a  tail. 

The  evolutionist  tells  us  that  man's  tail,  inherited 
from  the  lemur,  a  monkey  which  had  a  tail  like  the  tail 
of  a  fox,  was  gradually  evoluted  off  (like  the  horse's 
toes)  as  he  abandoned  life  in  the  trees  for  life  on  the 
ground,  but  Haeckel,  off  guard,  describes  "living  hu- 
man races  who  still  live  in  trees"  ("Wonders  of  Life/ 
1904).  They  have  no  tails — of  course!  Their  tails 
were  evoluted  off!  Presumptively  the  tails  of  the 
great  apes  were  also  evoluted  off— during  those  mil- 
lions of  years   of  evolution — completely  off,  despite 


158  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

their  usefulness  for  life  in  the  trees.  Yet  with  the 
"improvement"  represented  by  tail-less-ness,  there 
was  no  systematic  improvement  in  other  directions. 
The  chimpanzee  never  lost  those  supra-orbital  ridges 
which  today  are  identical  with  the  oldest  fossil  ridges. 

Nor  was  there  any  gain  in  cranial  capacity!  Obvi- 
ously the  evolution  of  the  great  apes  was  limited — ex- 
pressly limited — to  tails — or  rather  to  the  loss  of  tails ! 
Even  the  elephant  has  kept  his  tail,  as  well  as  the  rat, 
though  neither  creature  lives  in  trees.  Natural  Selec- 
tion, confronted  by  the  fact  of  tail-less-ness,  must  in- 
sist that  the  chimpanzee  never  had  a  tail.  But  this 
makes  matters  worse!  Natural  Selection  demands 
that  for  his  life  in  the  trees  he  should  have  "  dev el- 
oped' '  a  tail  because  of  its  usefulness  to  an  arboreal 
existence,  just  as  the  giraffe  developed  a  neck  for  its 
arboreal  usefulness.  Haeckel  did  not  see  the  conse- 
quences of  his  fraud ;  for  his  tailless  embryo,  designed 
to  create  an  impression  in  one  direction,  merely  serves 
to  embarrass  him  the  more  in  another. 

"We  all  know/'  says  Haeckel  ("Sandalion,"  Eng- 
lish translation,  1910,  p.  19),  "how  tender  the  ape- 
mother  is  of  her  young.  Yet  Brass  teaches  us  that  it 
is  exactly  the  selfless  mother-love  and  mother-care  that 
clearly  distinguish  man  from  all  mammals  and  removes 
him  far  above  the  impulses  and  instincts  of  a  beast." 

As  late  as  the  summer  of  1921  the  prize  female  of 
the  primate  family,  "Susie,"  a  chimpanzee,  of  the 
Bronx  Zoo,  New  York  City,  gave  birth  to  a  baby  great 
ape  which  she  starved  to  death  by  refusing  to  feed  it. 
The  phenomenon  constituted  such  a  good  "news"  story 
that  it  was  "played  up"  by  all  the  metropolitan  dailies, 
which  dignified  this  little  episode  of  natural  history 
with  two-column  headlines  and  half-tone  pictures  of 
the  unnatural  mother.    "Bomba,"  father  of  the  dead 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  159 

chimpanzee,  exhausted  himself  by  racing  about  and 
screaming  in  the  adjoining  cage. 

Perhaps  among  the  most  amazing  declarations  of 
Haeckel  is  his  statement  ("Sandalion,"  English  tram 
lation,  1910,  p.  20) :  "Every  histologist,  every  student, 
every  physician  who  has  examined  microscopically  the 
human  tissue  and  the  tissue  of  other  mammals  knows 
that  their  coarser  and  finer  structures,  the  morphologic 
and  physiologic  characteristics  of  their  cells,  are  ex- 
actly the  same.  In  sixty  years,  ever  since  thousands 
of  accurate  observations  have  been  made  of  the  struc- 
ture of  the  epithelium,  the  glands,  the  cartilage,  the 
bones,  the  plain  and  striated  muscles,  no  one  has  suc- 
ceeded in  finding  any  histologic  differences  between 
man  and  the  other  animals.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
egg  cell.  Dr.  Brass  says  the  human  egg  cell  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  ape  's  egg  cell.  He  is  the  only  one  who 
had  discovered  that  it  is!" 

Obviously  Professor  Haeckel  knew  nothing  of  the 
chromosomes  which  differ  in  number,  size  and  shape 
to  an  astonishing  extent  in  the  cells  of  all  animals  of 
different  species,  ranging  in  some  from  less  than  ten 
to  the  cell  to  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty-six.  It 
is  precisely  such  statements  as  these  that  have  inspired 
the  great  William  Bateson,  to  whom  we  shall  shortly 
come,  to  make  what  is  recognized  by  scientific  men  all 
over  the  world  as  the  most  careful,  most  accurate  and 
most  truly  scientific  summation  of  the  bankruptcy  of 
the  evolutionary  theory  now  obsessing  the  popular 
mind. 

For  an  impatient  commentary  on  the  contradictions 
of  Haeckel  see  "The  World  of  Life,"  1916,  pp.  5-10,  by 
Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  who,  though  a  champion  of 
Darwinism,  disposes  of  the  foremost  corrupt  or  of  1  Dar- 
winism in  six  pages  of  deadly  parallel  from  which  in 
conclusion  the  following  (pp.  7-8)  is  quoted:     "The 


160  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

writings  of  Haeckel,  the  extremely  dogmatic  and  as- 
sertive character  of  which  have  been  illustrated  in  the 
preceding  quotations,  have  had  an  immense  influence 
on  many  classes  of  readers,  who,  when  a  man  becomes 
widely  known  as  a  great  authority  in  any  department 
of  science,  accept  him  as  a  safe  guide  in  any  other  de- 
partment on  which  he  expresses  his  opinions.  But  the 
fact  is  that  Haeckel  has  gone  altogether  out  of  his  own 
department  of  biological  knowledge,  and  even  beyond 
the  whole  range  of  physical  science,  when  he  attempts 
to  deal  with  problems  involving  infinity  and  eternity. 
To  assert  what  Haeckel  asserts  is  surely  not  SCIENCE), 
and  very  bad  philosophy.  We  have  no  sympathy  with 
his  unfounded  dogmatism  of  combined  negation  and 
omniscience,  and  more  especially  when  this  assump- 
tion of  superior  knowledge  seems  to  be  put  forward  to 
conceal  his  real  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  life  itself. 
He  evades  altogether  any  attempt  to  solve  the  various 
difficult  problems  of  nutrition,  assimilation  and  growth. 
The  causes  and  mechanism  by  which  it  comes  about 
that  the  infinitely  varied  materials  of  which  organisms 
are  built  up  are  always  in  the  right  place,  and  develop 
into  cells  at  the  right  time,  are  never  touched  upon  by 
Haeckel,  who  comes  before  us  with  what  he  claims  to 
be  a  solution  of  the  Riddles  of  the  Universe. " 

Wallace,  in  his  criticisms  of  Haeckel,  does  not  ex- 
clude Huxley,  though  nowadays  one  never  hears  an 
echo  of  this  almost  forgotten  truth.  To  read  Wallace 
is  to  conceive  a  profound  appreciation  of  the  contra- 
dictions with  which  the  " great  masters"  have,  to  use 
his  own  words,  "concealed  our  real  ignorance  under 
a  special  term.,,  The  quoted  phrase  will  be  found  in 
"The  World  of  Life,"  p.  9.  Again  on  page  400  of  the 
same  work  Wallace  exclaims:  "Professor  Huxley 
used  terms  still  more  erroneous  and  misleading.  It  is 
the  influence  of  such  statements  as  these,  repeated  and 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  161 

even  exaggerated  in  newspaper  articles  and  reviews 
all  over  the  country,  that  has  led  so  wan//  persons  to 
fall  back  upon  the  teaching  of  Haeckel — that  the  uni- 
verse had  no  designer  or  creator,  but  has  always  ex- 
isted; and  that  the  life  pageant  with  all  its  pain  and 
horror  has  been  repeated  cycle  after  cycle  from  eter- 
nity in  the  past,  and  will  be  repeated  in  similar  cycles 
forever" 

Wallace  not  only  explains  what  we  choose  to  call 
"pain"  among  animals,  bnt  he  says  in  answer  to  the 
question  so  puzzling  to  the  materialist,  Is  Nature 
Cruel?    No;  a  decided  "no." 

If  Huxley  could  be  tricked  and  deceived  by  Haeckel, 
or  if  he  were  disposed  to  be  deceived,  which  makes  mat- 
ters even  worse,  what  about  the  school  children  and  the 
readers  of  the  modern  newspapers'?  Osborn  is  doubt- 
less familiar  with  Professor  Williamson's  "Primeval 
Vegetation."  Williamson  says  (p.  200):  "Not  only 
living  but  extinct  animals  have  been  appealed  to.  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  has,  with  his  wonted  skilfulness,  made 
use  of  the  latter  to  buttress  the  geological  side  of  the 
structure,  which  is  confessedly  its  weakest  one.' 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  educated  men  as 
well  as  children  are  disposed  to  accept  these  scientific 
fictions  when  most  people  would  naturally  suppose 
them  to  be  based  upon  palaeontological  evidence,  just  as 
they  would  naturally  suppose  that  Professor  Osborn 's 
exhibits  are  based  upon  the  same  kind  of  evidence. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  which 
hints  at  the  truth  so  graphically  epitomized  by  M.  de 
Quatref  ages : 

"Not  one  of  the  creatures  in  this  pedigree  has  ever 
been  seen.  No  skeleton  or  fossil  of  a  single  one  of  these 
creatures  has  ever  been  discovered.  Their  existence  La 
based  wholly  on  theory.  To  fill  his  gaps  Haeckel  in- 
vents the  type  as  well  as  the  line  of  descent  to  which 


162  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

he  assigns  them.  Whenever  a  branch  or  a  twig  is 
lacking  on  his  genealogical  tree,  whenever  the  transit 
from  one  type  to  another  would  appear  too  abrupt,  he 
invents  species  and  groups  bodily  to  which  he  unhesi- 
tatingly assigns  a  place.  Is  it  not  very  singular  that 
precisely  that  evidence  must  be  supposed  always  to 
have  perished  which  the  evolution  theory  imperatively 
requires  while  so  much  evidence  remains  to  contradict 
it!" 

Why  are  the  visitors  of  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man 
denied  the  declaration  of  DuBois-Reymond  ("Revue 
Scientifique, "  I,  p.  1101) :  " Man's  pedigree  as  drawn 
up  by  Haeckel  is  worth  about  as  much  as  is  that  of 
Homer's  heroes." 

The  Osborn  Conundrums 

In  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  where  all  is  cut  and 
dried,  catalogued  and  interpreted,  there  isn't  the  re- 
motest reference  to  a  solitary  fact  among  the  scores 
assembled  here.  Will  Professor  Osborn  explain  this? 
Will  he  explain  why  the  scientists,  searching  for  a 
missing  link,  always  find  the  fossils  of  isolated  groups 
of  genera  and  species,  of  which  hundreds  and  hun- 
dreds have  been  recovered,  whereas  in  no  single  in- 
stance has  there  ever  been  found  a  solitary  trace  of 
the  indispensable,  graduated  series  linking  them  to- 
gether? 

Will  he  explain  why  at  every  point  the  searchers  for 
"missing  links"  stumble  upon  exactly  those  specimens 
which  contradict  the  theory  that  he  so  zealously  at- 
tempts to  uphold? 

The  Lord  St.  Albans  would  say  to  some  philoso- 
phers, ' '  Gentlemen,  Nature  is  a  labyrinth  in  which  the 
very  haste  you  move  with  will  make  you  lose  your 
way." 


GOD— OR  GORTLLA  163 

Will  Professor  Osborn  deny  that  the  Amor i can  Mu- 
seum's Bulletin  on  the  Evolution  of  the  Horse  di 
closes  the  hurried  follies  of  the  scientists  who  are 
eager  to  have  their  opinions  accepted  that  they  must 
themselves  confirm  as  " truth"  that  which  remains  un- 
known, and  reject,  because  it  does  not  fit  into  their 
picture,  that  which  is  known? 

Will  Professor  Osborn  deny  that  the  American  Mu- 
seum makes  a  " perfect  case"  for  evolution  by  its  ex- 
hibit of  the  F volution  of  the  Horse? 

Will  he  deny  that  this  "perfect  case'  is  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  completed  horse,  as  we  now 
know  it,  did  not  exist  during  the  earlier  periods  when 
its  supposed  ancestors  were  preparing  the  way  for  its 
modern  debut? 

Will  Professor  Osborn  deny  that  this  assumption 
goes  even  further  than  this  by  assuming  that  none  of 
the  intermediate  sub-horse  creatures  lived  simultane- 
ously with  others  more  ancient  still,  which  others  nrasl 
needs  be  described,  therefore,  by  the  phrase  "  Undis- 
covered Ancestors?" 

Will  Professor  Osborn  deny  that  this  assumption 
rests  solely  and  alone  upon  the  absence  of  fossils  of 
the  "more  highly  developed"  in  the  strata  containing 
fossils  of  the  "less  highly  developed"? 

Will  Professor  Osborn  deny  that,  to  the  same  ex- 
tent, no  more,  no  less,  it  is  sufficient  to  establish  the 
non-existence  of  intermediate  forms  between  ape  and 
man  in  order  to  conclude,  as  the  evolutionist  conclud< 
with  respect  to  the  horse,  that,  because  no  such  inter- 
mediate forms  are  to  be  found,  there  never  were  any? 

Professor  Osborn  must  see  the  necessity  of  admit- 
ting that  if  the  intermediate  forms,  the  transition  types, 
the  missing  links,  or  whatever  else  the  pedigree  manu- 
facturers may  see  fit  to  call  them,  are  not  to  be  Pound, 
they  never  existed.    It  is  precisely  because  the  modern 


164  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

horse  IS  NOT  FOUND  AMONG  ITS  SO-CALLED 
PREDECESSORS  THAT  THE  EVOLUTIONISTS 
DECLARE  WITH  EMPHASIS  THAT  IT  HAD  NO 
EXISTENCE  AT  THAT  TIME,  wherefore  it  "was 
being  prepared  by  evolution  for  subsequent  existence.' ' 

Professor  Osborn  must  also  admit  that  the  methods 
of  the  evolutionist  must  work  consistently,  or  not  at 
all,  and  that,  therefore,  precisely  because  the  supposed 
link-forms  are  not  found  among  fossil  apes,  the  evolu- 
tionist must  declare,  as  he  declares  with  respect  to  the 
horse,  that  they  had  no  existence. 

They  cannot  resort  to  this  sort  of  thing  in  support 
of  one  end  of  their  theory  and  reject  it  when  it  proves 
embarrassing  at  the  other  end.  Because  it  is  embar- 
rassing the  evolutionists  have  had  to  create  their  hy- 
pothetical intermediate  forms,  their  missing  links,  in 
order  to  maintain  their  assumption  of  gradual  transi- 
tion. 

The  writer  again  reminds  Professor  Osborn  of  the 
scientific  candor  of  Mivart,  when  he  said:  "It  is  un- 
deniable that  there  are  instances  which  appeared  at 
first  to  indicate  a  GRADUAL  TRANSITION,  which 
instances  have  been  shown  by  further  investigation 
and  discovery  not  to  indicate  anything  of  the  kind." 
See  "Genesis  of  Species,"  p.  134. 

Professor  Osborn  himself,  in  an  address  before  the 
British  Association,  asserted  that  more  than  a  hun- 
dred more  or  less  complete  skeletons  of  horses  and 
horse-like  animals  have  been  found  in  North  America, 
and  that  although  he  thought  he  had  established  the 
fact  that  horses  were  polyphyletic,  there  being  four  or 
five  contemporary  series  in  the  Miocene,  the  direct 
origin  of  the  Genus  Equus  in  North  America  was  not 
established  with  certainty. 

Not  only  has  it  not  been  established  with  certainty, 
but  it  has  been  wholly  disestablished.    No  less  an  au- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  165 

thority  than  Professor  Sedgwick  demonstrates  that  ac- 
cording to  the  evidence  itself  the  horse  actually  ap- 
peared before  some  of  its  supposed  ancestors.  What, 
then,  are  the  facts  concerning  the  horse? 


CHAPTER  XIII 
What  Is  a  Horse? 

Another  " striking  similarity" — Examining  the  horse — One  toe  evoluted 
off — Is  a  horse  a  horse? — Ruining  the  "demonstration" — "Impos- 
sible, ' '  said  Darwin — Darwin 's  bewilderment. 

Referring  to  the  skeleton  of  a  man  and  a  horse 
mounted  under  the  direction  of  Professor  Osborn  in 
the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  Guide  Leaf- 
let No.  36,  published  April,  1921,  says,  p.  41:  "A 
careful  study  will  reveal  a  most  striking  similarity  be- 
tween horse  and  man  in  general  structure,  the  differ- 
ences being  simply  modifications  of  a  common  plan." 

The  most  casual  observer  will  not  deny  the  extraor- 
dinary similarity.  The  rearing  horse,  standing  al- 
most upright,  so  vividly  resembles  the  man  in  bony 
structure  as  to  suggest  an  entirely  new  line  of  specu- 
lation. There  is  no  monopoly  of  the  ludicrous,  no 
patent  rights  on  the  ridiculous!  We  are  not  now 
speaking  of  a  resemblance  between  man  and  ape,  but 
between  man  and  horse! 

Why  did  man  not  evolute  from  the  horse?  Except 
for  the  skull,  which  man's  skull  resembles  as  closely 
as  it  resembles  the  skull  of  the  fox-nosed  lemur,  "his 
earliest  known  ancestor,"  the  resemblance  is  so  aston- 
ishing as  to  justify  the  words  quoted  from  p.  41  of  the 
guide  leaflet. 

The  tail  bones  are  missing  in  man,  but  the  lemur 
had  quite  as  much  tail  as  the  horse,  and  they  say  man 
began  with  the  lemur. 

Man  has  five  toes  and  the  horse  has  a  hoof.    But  it's 

m 


Skeleton  of  horse  and  man  compared.  Rones  of  horse  have  been 
placed  in  artificial  upright  position.  Note  extraordinary 
' '  resemblances. ' ' 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  167 

only  the  modern  horse  that  has  a  hoof,  one  toe,  on  the 
nail  of  which  it  has  learned  to  walk. 

"The  horse,"  says  the  guide  leaflet,  p.  9,  "may  be 
said  to  walk  on  its  middle  ringer  nail,  all  the  other  fin- 
gers having  disappeared/' 

The  modern  horse's  ancestors  "had  five  toes  and 
walked  on  all  of  them,"  just  as  man  walks  on  his  five 
toes  today.    So  there's  no  difficulty  there! 

In  the  matter  of  "resemblances"  between  bones 
there  are  scores  of  "proofs"  that  man  evoluted  from 
the  horse  and  not  from  the  monkey.  Moreover,  those 
"proofs"  are  all  at  hand  and  require  no  such  number 
of  hypothetical  missing  links  as  are  demanded  by  the 
man-ape  theory. 

In  the  first  place  the  "most  complete  case"  for  evo- 
lution is  the  horse  case,  and  upon  its  "solid  founda- 
tions" the  man-ape  structure  leans  heavily.  As  re- 
constructed the  "palpable  plausibility"  of  the  horse 
pedigree  commands  attention. 

Let  us  examine  it  as  presented  by  the  same  "scien- 
tific" authorities  who  have  dramatized  their  "recon- 
struction" of  the  Trinil  man-ape,  the  Neanderthal  ape- 
man  and  the  Cro-Magnon  human  in  the  Hall  of  the 
Age  of  Man. 

Examining  the  Horse 

"The  horse  began  3,000,000  years  ago  in  the  Eocene. 
There  are  twelve  main  links  connecting  him  with  thai 
remote  epoch."  The  writer  has  examined  the  "proof 
only  to  come  away,  not  as  so  much  submissive  mutton 
but  as  an  unbeliever  and  a  scoffer.  With  an  experi- 
ence covering  207  prosecutions  in  criminal  courts,  su- 
preme courts,  federal  district  courts  and  all  sorfs  of 
courts  the  writer  has  never  seen  such  proof  enter  the 
records.    Not  only  does  it  (bald  opinion)  never  reach 


168  GOD—OR  GORILLA 

cross-examination,  but  the  judges  strike  it  out  instant-, 
ly  upon  its  appearance  in  direct  examination. 

They  want  no  opinions  of  any  kind.  They  want  evi- 
dence, facts,  proof,  not  "  testimony, ' '  and  they  want 
corroboration! 

Link  No.  1  is  called  by  a  very  awesome  name.  They 
have  dubbed  it  Hyracotherium.  They  really  didn't 
know  how  many  toes  it  had  because  they  could  find  only 
its  skull,  "so  that  it  has  not  been  determined  exactly 
what  the  feet  were  like.,, 

That  word  " exactly' '  has  a  familiar  sound.  It  sug- 
gests a  high  degree  of  certainty.  That  the  Hyraco- 
therium, all  bones  missing  but  the  skull,  was  the  first 
horse  is  one  of  the  "exact"  steps  in  this  evolution 
journey  toward  scientific  certainty.  We  must  not  miss 
the  significance  of  that  word  " exact.' ' 

Link  No.  2  is  called  the  Eohippus.  The  following 
exact  quotations  are  lifted  from  the  scientific  litera- 
ture published  by  the  American  Museum:  "The  Eo- 
hippus is  much  better  known  and  is  very  like  the  Hy- 
racotherium. The  fore-foot  has  four  complete  toes. 
The  hind-foot  has  three." 

One  Toe  Evoluted  Off 

Already  one  toe  has  been  evoluted  off  the  fore-foot 
and  two  toes  have  disappeared  from  the  hind-foot. 
"Undiscovered  Ancestors"  will  doubtless  be  found 
some  day  with  all  five  toes  exactly  where  they  belong. 
No,  these  two  creatures  "in  the  direct  line  of  descent 
of  the  modern  horse"  (exact  quotation  from  p.  15) 
were  not  as  large  as  a  horse.  Surprising  as  it  may 
seem,  they  were  smaller  than  a  squirrel ! 

Here  again  we  have  a  few  bones,  "estimated  to  be 
3,000,000  years  old,"  of  two  animals  smaller  than  a 
squirrel  and,  with  a  positiveness  described  as  "scien- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  169 

tific,"  we  are  told  they  are  the  two  first  stages  "in 
the  direct  line  of  descent  of  the  modern  horse." 

Link  No.  3  is  called  Orohippus,  representing  a  pe- 
riod " about  1,000,000  years  later,"  when  the  evolution 
was  getting  on  quite  well.  The  little  Orohippus  still 
has  "four  complete  and  usable  toes  in  the  fore-  and 
three  in  the  hind-foot." 

It  shows  an  animal  the  size  of  a  small  dog  and  pro- 
portioned much  like  the  breed  known  as  the  whippet. 
Anyhow,  as  this  animal  was  larger  than  the  others  and 
a  million  years  younger  it  shows  that  the  "horse" 
was  growing  some.  He  certainly  had  to !  Was  he  not 
being  chased  by  primitive  dogs  as  big  as  bears? 

Link  No.  4  is  given  the  name  of  Epihippus.  Times 
have  been  getting  on.  He  is  now  ' 1 1,500,000  years  old ' p 
and  has  been  evoluting  finely  during  the  million  and  a 
half  years  that  preceded  him.  Resemblances  are  still 
as  similar  as  ever,  though  still  not  quite  as  "striking" 
as  the  similarity  between  the  man  of  today  and  the 
horse  he  is  driving,  if  he  happens  to  have  a  job  on  a 
milk  wagon. 

They  have  never  found  a  skeleton  of  this  fellow 
Epihippus,  but  fragments  will  do  for  the  reconstruc- 
tionists  where  evolution  is  in  need  of  a  prop  or  two. 
However,  let  us  be  exact  and  quote  from  the  museum's 
own  words : 

"The  toes  are  still  four  in  the  fore-foot  and  three 
in  the  hind-foot,  but  the  central  toe  in  each  foot  is  bo- 
coming  larger  than  the  side  toes."  Plausibility  is 
lending  a  hand  or,  should  we  not  say,  a  hoof!  That 
phrase  "is  becoming  larger"  is  a  vile  phrase.  Even 
Polonius  would  have  said  so,  had  his  conversations 
with  Hamlet  touched  upon  other  forms  of  evolution 
than  such  as  were  involved  in  the  "resemblances"  of 
yonder  cloud  to  a  camel,  a  weasel  or  a  whale. 

In  that  paragraph  a  hoof  is  certainly  being  fore- 


170  god—OR  GORILLA 

shadowed.  That  central  toe  has  got  to  be  a  hoof  some 
day.  The  animal  is  about  four  feet  long,  the  size  of 
an  Armour  pig,  but  a  million  years  later  a  regular 
horse  with  a  hoof,  one  toe,  the  central  toe,  will  look 
back  over  "its  direct  line  of  descent"  and  neigh  for 
the  feed-bag.  Science  reveals  the  first  half.  Your 
own  eyes  and  ears  supply  the  second. 

At  this  point  the  "scientists"  kick  the  great  author- 
ity on  evolution,  Professor  Huxley,  right  out  of  the  pic- 
ture. Perhaps  they  wouldn't  have  been  so  bold  if 
Huxley  himself  hadn't  authorized  the  act.  The 
Palaeotherium  comes  in  with  another  creature  called 
the  Plagiolophus.  One  of  these  animals  was  a  direct 
ancestor  of  the  horse,  according  to  Huxley.  Now  they 
admit  Huxley  was  wrong.  The  critter  was  only  a  "col- 
lateral relative." 

Anyhow,  he  was  four  feet  long  and  his  remains  were 
dug  out  of  a  gypsum  quarry  at  Montmartre  (France), 
whence  came  that  terrible  fellow  who  managed  to  get 
in  among  the  apes  that  evoluted  into  man  a  half  mil- 
lion years  ago. 

Links  Nos.  5,  6  and  7  are  confessedly  stumbling 
blocks.  They  are  given  two  names,  the  Mesohippus 
and  the  Miohippus.  The  jump  from  Europe  to  Amer- 
ica is  no  jump  at  all  compared  with  all  the  other  jumps 
of  the  evolutionist.  Some  of  them,  although  500,000 
years  further  advanced  along  the  exact  and  the  direct 
line,  have  mysteriously  shrunk  and  are  now  only  "the 
size  of  a  coyote."    Others  are  "as  large  as  a  sheep." 

But ' '  the  middle  toe  is  now  much  larger  than  the  side 
toes,  which  bear  very  little  of  the  weight  of  the  ani- 
mal." The  hoof  is  getting  plausibly  nearer,  and  that 
hoof  is  certainly  an  important  matter,  but  not  nearly 
so  important  as  the  spiritual,  rational  soul  of  man. 

When  they  get  to  Link  No.  8  they  don't  know  what 
to  do  with  Anchitherium  and  Hypohippus.     The  first 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  171 

of  these  fellows  has  been  found  only  in  Europe  and 
the  second  has  given  so  much  trouble,  though  found 
in  Colorado,  that  they  have  had  to  admit  he  "is  off  the 
direct  line  of  descent." 

About  as  large  as  a  Shetland  pony,  Professor  Os- 
born  considers  him  as  adapted  for  a  forest  life  and  has 
named  him  the  " three-toed  forest  horse." 

"The  restoration  illustrates  this  supposed  habitat 
and  adaptation."  Exactness  has  troubles  on  its  hands, 
but  is  by  no  means  nonplussed,  for  jumps  are  ever 
jumps,  and  long  legs  terminating  in  a  sufficiency  of 
toes  make  excellent  jump-sticks. 

So  Links  No.  8  and  No.  9  are  called  the  Parahippus. 
The  teeth  are  more  nearly  like  those  of  a  horse  and  the 
side  toes  are  quite  small  and  off  the  ground.  The  time 
assigned  to  him,  when  he  was  here,  is  between  1,000,000 
and  550,000  years  ago.  As  for  size?  Naturally  he'd 
be  a  bit  bigger.  Otherwise  he  'd  have  to  go  toward  the 
foot  of  his  class,  where  there  are  no  hoofs. 

Link  No.  10  is  called  the  Merychippus.  They  recon- 
struct him,  as  in  so  many  of  the  other  links,  from 
"skulls,  jaws  and  incomplete  skeletons,"  but  he  does 
very  well  because  "his  side  toes  are  slender  and  no 
longer  reach  the  ground."  The  middle  toe  has  got  to 
be  a  hoof,  you  know,  or  there  would  be  more  resemb- 
lance between  the  Merychippus  and  man  than  between 
man  and  lemur.  That  phrase  "no  longer,"  though  a 
bit  worn  and  correspondingly  fatigued,  still  renders 
valiant  service. 

Link  No.  11  is  a  sort  of  trinity.  There  are  three  in 
one,  the  Hipparion  from  Europe  and  the  Protohippus 
and  the  Pliohippus  from  America.  They  come  along 
with  Pithecanthropus  Erectus  a  half  million  years  ago, 
and  though  they  have  three  toes  they  are  getting  closer 
to  the  Madison  Square  Garden  horse  show  by  ever  so 


172  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

much.     Perhaps   Pithecanthropus  Erectus  was  their 
ring-master. 

Professor  Osborn  calls  the  Hipparion  "the  three- 
toed  desert  horse."  Protohippus  and  Pliohippus  are 
rather  inconsiderate,  as  they  are  not  found  in  Europe, 
but  then,  for  that  matter,  neither  was  Pithecanthropus, 
who  was  a  Javanese  fathered  by  a  Dutchman.  How- 
ever, the  direct  line  must  leave  something  to  the  imag- 
ination or  it  wouldn't  be  "science."  Even  the  wing- 
less bird  of  New  Zealand  got  there  without  wings, 
though  how  he  did  it  nobody  pretends  to  know. 

Is  a  House  a  Hokse? 

Link  No.  12  is  called  Pliohippus.  This  creature's 
bones  were  found  in  1917.  They  say  he  is  about  500,- 
000  years  old,  but  he  has  hoofs  and  is  not  the  size  of  a 
squirrel  or  a  cat  or  a  dog  or  a  coyote  or  a  sheep.  He 
is  the  size  of  a  horse  and  has  everything  that  a  horse 
has,  and  is  therefore  "transitional  from  the  three-toed 
to  the  one-toed  stage."  If  a  horse  is  a  horse  why  not 
harness  him  and  let  him  remain  a  horse?  Why  call 
him  a  Pliohippus? 

He  is  a  "tremendous  discovery"  even  though  for 
some  unexplained  reason  "The  Direct  Line"  would  get 
along  in  America  just  as  well  without  him  as  it  does  in 
the  old  world,  where  he  is  not  found  at  all.  If  you 
think  the  fact  is  queer  you  must  remember  it  is  "  scien- 
tific" and  indulge  it  accordingly. 

Curious  as  it  may  seem,  the  Old  World  horse  has  to 
content  itself  with  Links  Nos.  1,  2  and  11. 

All  the  others  have  to  be  dispensed  with  somehow, 
and  even  the  great  scientist  Huxley,  who  insisted  upon 
fabricating  Link  No.  4  as  a  "direct  ancestor,"  lived  to 
see  his  fabrication  defabricated.  The  best  that  could 
be  said  for  his  contribution  was:    It  is  only  a  "collat- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  173 

eral  relative. ' '  Nevertheless  the  Huxley  chain,  though 
nine  links  shy,  was  quite  "scientific"  enough  to  edify 
the  whole  evolutionary  world  when  it  was  needed  to 
prop  up  the  massive  superstructure  erected  on  those 
misbranded  bones. 

All  this  is  disillusioning  and  disturbing,  when  re- 
garded as  "  exact  science,"  for  the  reason  that  Huxley 
in  his  "The  Demonstrative  Evidence  of  Evolution,' ' 
says  .  .  .  "the  general  principles  of  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  horse  must 
have  been  derived  from  some  quadruped  which  pos- 
sessed five  complete  digits  on  each  foot.  .  .  .  Let  us 
turn  to  the  facts  and  see  how  far  they  fulfil  these  re- 
quirements of  the  doctrine  of  evolution.' ' 

What  have  we  seen?  A  number  of  bones  of  animals 
of  various  sizes  ranging  from  squirrel  to  cat,  from  cat 
to  dog,  from  dog  to  coyote,  from  coyote  to  sheep,  from 
sheep  to  large  creatures.  They  exhibit  a  few  points 
of  superficial  similarity  to  each  other  and  a  great  many 
points  of  radical  dissimilarity  and,  therefore,  "must  be 
stepping  stones  along  the  Direct  Line  of  Descent  lead- 
ing to  the  horse. ' '  Thus  the  four-pound  ancestor  of  the 
Eohippus  becomes  a  two-thousand-pound  horse  just  as 
the  four-pound  lemur  becomes  a  two-hundred-pound 
man.  Having  set  out  to  span  the  void  what  could  the 
evolutionists  do  but  span  it? 

And  now,  to  repeat  the  words  of  the  American  Mu- 
seum evolutionists,  as  "the  conclusion  is  unavoidable 
that  horse,  rhinoceros  and  tapir,  three  races  widely 
different  today,  are  derived  from  a  common  ancestral 
type,"  and  as  "a  careful  study  will  reveal  a  most  strik- 
ing similarity  between  the  horse  and  man  in  general 
structure,  the  differences  being  simply  modifications 
of  a  common  plan,"  there  is  something  more  than  plaus- 
ible in  the  theory  that  man's  relationship  to  the  lemur 
is  less  striking  than  his  relationship  to  the  rhinoceros. 


174  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

The  " undiscovered  ancestors,,  of  these  creatures 
might  well  have  been  a  pair  of  cooties.  Haeckel  says 
they  were  intestinal  worms.  You  may  take  your  choice. 
In  doing  so  you  will  have  the  consolation  of  knowing 
that  many  eminent  scientists  have  "proved"  even 
stranger  things  than  that.  Rejecting  God  entirely, 
they  worship  not  a  golden  calf  but  a  self-certified  opin- 
ion in  which  worms  are  the  beginning  and  end  of  all. 

Ruining  the  "  Demonstration  ' ' 

We  have  examined  merely  the  assumptions,  precon- 
ceptions, pre-opinions,  clumsily  hurdled  gaps  and  con- 
tradictions.   Now  let  us  examine  the  annihilations. 

In  his  "Essays  on  Controverted  Questions,' '  p.  450, 
Professor  Huxley,  urging  the  necessity  of  proofs  for 
our  beliefs,  declared:  "It  is  wrong  for  a  man  to  say 
he  is  certain  of  the  objective  truth  of  any  proposition 
unless  he  can  produce  evidence  which  logically  justifies 
that  certainty." 

Because  he  termed  the  "perfect  case"  of  the  Horse 
DEMONSTRATIVE  we  appeal  from  any  charge  of 
brutality  by  reason  of  the  application  of  his  own  for- 
mula of  judgment. 

In  the  DEMONSTRATION  as  in  all  other  instances 
the  one  thing  lacking,  which  is  absolutely  essential,  is 
a  single  scrap  of  evidence  of  one  species  of  so-called 
sub-horse  gradually  shading  off  into  a  higher  sub- 
horse,  and  so  on  into  the  modern  horse.  Each  crea- 
ture we  have  seen  is  isolated  from  all  the  others. 

As  Professor  John  Gerard  points  out,  they  are  far- 
ther apart  from  one  another  than  the  zebra  and  the 
donkey  from  the  horse.  Both  zebra  and  donkey  are 
classed  in  the  GENUS  Equus.  They  are  farther  apart 
than  the  Bengal  tiger  is  from  the  pussycat  at  the  fire- 
side, yet  the  Bengal  tiger  and  the  pussycat  both  belong 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  175 

to  the  GENUS  Felis.  If  they  were  ever  connected  by 
a  bridge  there  should  certainly  be  some  fossil  trace  of 
it. 

Again  it  is  odd  that  the  scientists  always  find  plenty 
of  specimens  of  the  things  to  be  connected  but  never 
a  single  connection.  Where  is  the  demonstration? 
Where  is  the  evidence?  We  have  seen  the  utter  and 
absolute  lack  of  either  and  we  also  hear  the  echo  of 
Professor  Huxley's  own  words:  "It  is  wrong  for  a 
man  to  say  he  is  certain  of  the  objective  truth  of  any 
proposition  unless  he  can  produce  evidence  which  logi- 
cally justifies  that  certainty. 

Professor  Huxley  foretold  the  coming  discovery  of 
Eohippus,  and  even  described  it.  Professor  Marsh 
foretold  and  described  a  still  more  remote  ancestral 
form  which,  though  it  has  never  been  found,  has  been 
given  the  name  Hippops.  See  American  Journal  of 
Science  and  Arts,  third  series,  vol.  43,  p.  351.  If  either 
of  them  had  any  faith  in  their  theory  of  evolution  why 
did  they  both  assume  that  some  day  we  would  stumble 
over  one  particular  form  "standing  like  a  solitary  out- 
post by  itself  and  not  upon  any  other  trace  of  the 
stream  of  life  whereof  it  was  but  a  single  transient 
phase !"  Alas  for  the  pretended  certainty  of  either 
professor !  The  evidence,  internal  and  external,  is  that 
neither  truly  believed  that  which  both  sought  to  make 
others  believe. 

The  horse  as  we  now  know  him,  Equus  caballus,  is  a 
native  of  the  Old  World  introduced  to  America  since 
the  time  of  Columbus.  Prior  to  that  period  all  Ameri- 
can horses  had  become  extinct,  yet  the  pedigree  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  consists  almost  entirely  of  American 
animals.  Every  name  ending  in  "hippus"  is  an  Amer- 
ican animal.  No  stretch  of  the  imagination  can  de- 
scribe them  as  the  ancestors  of  the  European  horse. 
Yet — they  were  thus  described ! 


176  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  ("Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution,' ' 
p.  119),  has  diagnosed  the  infirmity  of  the  "perfect 
case ' '  in  the  following  trenchant  fashion : 

"In  America  a  series  of  horse-like  animals  has  been 
selected,  beginning  with  the  Eohippus  of  the  Eocene — 
an  animal  the  size  of  a  fox,  and  with  four  toes  in  front 
and  three  behind — and  these  have  been  marshalled  as 
the  ancestors  of  the  fossil  horses  of  America.  .  .  .  Yet 
all  this  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  dependent  merely  on  a 
succession  of  genera  more  and  more  closely  resemb- 
ling the  modern  horse,  being  procurable  from  succes- 
sive Tertiary  deposits  often  widely  separated  in  time 
and  place.  In  Europe,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ancestry 
of  the  horse  has  been  traced  back  to  Palaeotherium — an 
entirely  different  form — by  just  as  likely  indications, 
the  truth  being  that  as  the  group  to  which  the  horse  be- 
longs culminated  in  the  early  Tertiary  times,  the  ani- 
mal has  too  many  imaginary  ancestors. 

"Both  genealogies  can  scarcely  be  true,  and  there  is 
no  actual  proof  of  either.  The  existing  American 
horses,  which  are  of  European  origin,  are,  according 
to  the  theory,  descendants  of  Palaeotherium,  not  of 
Eohippus ;  but  if  we  had  not  known  this  on  historical 
evidence,  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  prevent 
us  from  tracing  them  to  the  latter  animal.  This  sim- 
ple consideration  alone  is  sufficient  to  show  that  such 
genealogies  are  not  of  the  nature  of  scientific  evi- 
dence.' '  Yet — such  genealogies  are  driven  through  a 
whole  series  of  gossamer-like  premises  into  the  rock- 
ribbed  conclusions  of  "science." 

If  a  comparison  is  made  of  the  lines  of  ancestry 
favored  by  Professor  Huxley,  by  the  American  Mu- 
seum of  Natural  History,  by  Professor  Mivart  in 
"Types  of  Animal  Life,"  p.  205,  by  Professor  Lydek- 
ker  in  "Manual  of  Palaeontology,"  ii.,  1362,  etc.,  we 
find  that  whereas  Hipparion  is  here  cut  off  from  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  177 

direct  line  of  descent,  he  is  there  specified  as  "the 
immediate  ancestor  of  the  horse.' y 


' '  Impossible,  ' '  Said  Darwin 

In  every  one  of  the  pedigrees  the  Old  World  and 
New  World  creatures  are  used  indiscriminately  and 
there  is  no  agreement  of  any  kind  as  to  the  earlier  an- 
cestry. 

Professor  Huxley  regarded  his  pedigree  of  1870  as 
"scientifically  demonstrated, ' '  although  it  was  totally 
different  from  his  later  and  more  highly  renovated 
pedigree  of  1876.  In  1870  the  ancestors  of  the  horse 
consisted  of  Hipparion,  Anchitherium  and  Plagiolo- 
phus.  In  1876  Hipparion  ceased  to  be  an  ancestor  and 
Anchitherium  was  removed  to  make  a  place  for  Mio- 
hippus.  The  horse  cannot  be  descended  from  both  be- 
cause the  one  existed  in  the  Old  World  and  the  other 
in  the  New  World.  In  its  proper  place  the  continent 
of  Australia  with  its  strangely  stable  Marsupials  will 
have  similar  perplexing  attention. 

In  the  latest  pedigree  Plagiolophus  has  been  ousted 
completely.  Professor  Darwin  ("Origin  of  Species,' ' 
Appleton,  1920,  pp.  107-108)  declared  the  Hipparion 
was  subject  to  no  dispute.  "No  one  will  deny,"  he 
wrote,  "that  the  Hipparion  is  intermediate  between 
the  existing  horse  and  certain  older  ungulate  forms. ' ' 

Yet  Professor  Huxley,  zealous  champion  of  Profes- 
sor Darwin,  had  to  deny  precisely  that.  When  the 
"perfect  case"  was  made  it  was  even  thought  that  the 
Hippitheum  had  legs  that  terminated  in  claws.  One 
species  of  Hippitheum  was  known  only  by  a  solitary 
tooth.  Of  the  Hyracotherium  only  the  skull  had  been 
found.  Of  Orohippus  there  were  but  fragments  of  jaws 
and  teeth  and  a  fore-foot.  Of  Epihippus  "there  were 
but  incomplete  specimens.,, 


178  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

According  to  the  evidence  itself  there  was  deteriora- 
tion instead  of  advance  in  the  evolution  of  the  horse, 
for  the  Epihippus  which  came  along  "thousands  of 
years' '  after  the  Protorohippus  is  very  much  smaller 
than  its  grandfather  when  it  should  be  very  much 
larger  on  its  progressive  way  from  a  four-pounder  to 
a  creature  weighing  a  ton. 

The  American  Museum  officials  used  to  get  around 
this  difficulty  by  declaring  ("The  Evolution  of  the 
Horse/ '  p.  16) :  "No  doubt  there  were  others  of  larger 
size  living  at  the  same  time."  No  doubt  anything,  if 
anything  is  essential  to  the  support  of  a  theory. 

Furthermore  there  is  the  remarkable  circumstance 
that  in  the  line  of  evolution  culminating  in  the  modern 
horse  a  parallel  series  of  closely  allied  forms  occurs  in 
the  Tertiaries  of  both  Europe  and  North  America,  yet 
the  American  pedigree,  which  had  to  be  entirely  differ- 
ent from  the  European,  ends  equally  in  both  continents 
with  the  Genus  Equus,  if  not  actually  with  Equus  ca- 
ballus. 

The  evolutionists  make  no  effort  to  explain  how  two 
separate  developments  conducted  along  separate  roads 
could  thus  be  brought  to  meet  in  the  same  road  house. 
Professor  Darwin  did  not  conceive  it  possible  that  the 
same  species  should  be  produced  twice  over,  "if  even 
the  very  same  conditions  of  life,  organic  and  inorganic, 
should  recur."  See  ("The  Origin  of  Species,"  Ap- 
pleton,  1920,  vol.  2,  p.  92). 

Darwin's  Bewilderment 

But  take  the  last  horse  and  assume  that  he  really  is 
lineally  descended  from  the  first  ungulate,  Eohippus. 
The  ungulates  include  the  rock-rabbit,  elephant,  pec- 
cary, tapir,  mammoth,  mastodon,  rhinoceros,  hippo- 
potamus, giraffe,  deer,  moose,  elk,  antelope,  camel,  ox, 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  179 

llama,  sheep,  goat,  hog,  buffalo,  bison  and  yak.  How 
is  it  to  be  assumed  that  this  ungulate  himself  similarly 
developed  from  a  non-ung*ulate  mammalian  ancestor? 
"To  develop  all  these  from  one  original,"  says  Profes- 
sor Gerard,  "through  a  graduated  series  in  each  case 
by  the  infinitesimal  process  of  descent  with  modifica- 
tion, would  require  a  period  of  time  inconceivably  long 
— immensely  longer  than  that  required  to  change  one 
ungulate  into  another. 

"Ungulates  are  a  highly  specialized  type  of  mam- 
mal and  although  they  walk  on  the  nails  of  five  toes 
instead  of  on  one  hoof,  a  vast  process  of  evolution 
would  be  required  to  bring  them  even  to  this  point  from 
which  all  mammals  are  said  to  have  started.  There 
must  also  have  existed,  while  this  development  was  in 
progress,  a  teeming  and  multitudinous  mammalian  life, 
as  raw  material  for  its  operations — and  of  this  at  least 
SOME  trace  should  remain. " 

Darwin  voiced  his  own  bewilderment  in  similar  man- 
ner in  vol.  2,  chapter  10,  "The  Origin  of  Species," 
which  can  be  summed  up  as  follows :  ' '  The  main  cause 
of  innumerable  intermediate  links  (between  different 
forms)  not  now  occurring  everywhere  throughout  na- 
ture, depends  on  the  very  process  of  natural  selection, 
through  which  new  varieties  continually  take  the 
places  of  and  supplant  their  parent-forms.  But  just 
in  proportion  as  this  process  of  extermination  has  act- 
ed on  an  enormous  scale,  so  must  the  number  of  inter- 
mediate varieties,  which  have  formerly  existed,  be 
truly  enormous.  Why,  then,  is  not  every  geological 
formation  and  every  stratum  full  of  such  intermediate 
links?  Geology  assuredly  does  not  reveal  any  such 
finely  graduated  organic  chain;  and  this,  perhaps,  is 
the  most  obvious  and  serious  objection  which  can  be 
urged  against  the  theory."  These  are  his  concluding 
words :    "I  do  not  pretend  that  I  should  ever  have  sus- 


180  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

pected  how  poor  was  the  record  in  the  BEST  PRE- 
SERVED geological  sections,  had  not  the  absence  of 
innumerable  transitional  links  pressed  so  hardly  on 
my  theory."     (See  vol.  2,  p.  77.) 

The  impossible  becomes  still  more  impossible  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  first  ungulates  made  their 
appearance  upon  earth  quite  as  soon  as  did  any  other 
mammals  from  which  they  could  possibly  have  sprung. 
Phenacodus  is  described  as  "the  most  primitive  Eo- 
cene mammal  yet  discovered."  He  appears  in  the 
Lower  Tertiary.  The  Secondary  and  Mesozoic  rocks 
beneath  are  practically  devoid  of  mammalian  remains 
altogether,  exhibiting  only  a  few  small  Marsupials. 
Whence,  then,  came  the  huge  and  terrible  beasts  who 
were  the  Eocene  contemporaries  of  Phenacodus?  By 
what  process  of  evolution  did  THEY  spring  instan- 
taneously from  other  forms  of  which  not  a  solitary 
trace  exists  amongst  their  own  abundant  skeletal  re- 
mains 1 

It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Tyran- 
nosaurs,  the  Dinosaurs  and  the  Triceratops  sprang  in- 
stantaneously from  some  creature  the  size  of  a  guinea 
pig  as  to  plug  this  hole  in  the  evolution  of  the  horse  or 
of  man  by  a  non-ungulate  stop-gap. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

Complications 

Whale  progressing  backward — Wings,  hands  and  feet — Increasing  com- 
plications— Looking  to  De  Vries — Wonderful  variations. 

It  also  complicates  matters  to  learn  that  when  pla- 
cental mammals  first  made  their  appearance  all  over 
the  wTorld,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Eocene,  the  "ances- 
tors" of  the  horse  had  a  host  of  contemporaries  of  ex- 
treme diversity  of  structure,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
unguiculates,  clawed  animals  allied  to  the  hyena  and 
the  fox,  gnawing  rodents  akin  to  the  squirrel,  also 
whales  and  bats.  Yet — the  necessities  of  evolution  de- 
mand for  all  these  " ancestors"  of  the  horse,  for  all 
these  unguiculates,  rodents,  whales  and  bats  just  as 
much  transformation  in  radically  opposite  directions 
in  their  progressive  ascent  through  unnumbered  mil- 
lions of  years  from  some  aboriginal  ancestor. 

Those  early  whales  at  the  foot  of  the  ladder  should 
have  advanced  from  lower  to  higher  forms  as  demand- 
ed by  the  evolutionist's  formula  with  respect  to  horse, 
man,  etc. 

Along  the  route  of  so  many  mile-posts  marking  the 
altogether  astonishing  stages  of  progressive  change  in 
the  evolutionary  pedigree  of  the  horse  it  would  stun 
the  theorist,  as  if  by  a  deadly  blow,  were  he  to  discover 
that  at  the  very  time  he  was  demanding  and  demon- 
strating so  much  progress  for  the  horse,  the  whale  was 
progressing  not  forward  but — backward ! 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  ("Chain  of  Life,"  p.  222),  says: 

181 


182  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

"The  oldest  of  the  whales  are  in  their  dentition  more 
perfect  than  any  of  their  successors,  since  their  teeth 
are  each  implanted  by  two  roots,  and  have  serrated 
crowns,  like  those  of  the  seals.  The  great  Eocene 
whales  of  the  South  Atlantic  which  have  these  char- 
acters attained  the  length  of  seventy  feet  and  are  un- 
doubtedly the  first  of  the  whales  in  rank  as  well  as  in 
time.  This  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  difficult  facts 
to  explain  on  the  theory  of  evolution." 

They  start  you  off  back  there  with  a  little  squirrel- 
like creature  when  the  whale  was  a  mammal  seventy 
feet  in  length,  more  perfect  according  to  the  bewilder- 
ment of  evolution  than  it  is  today,  and  they  ask  you 
to  believe  that  the  little  squirrel-like  creature  was  the 
father  of  the  modern  horse. 

There  were  the  Eocene  Eohippus  and  the  Eocene 
whale.  The  Eocene  Eohippus  they  say  has  been  com- 
ing up,  up,  up,  under  the  irresistible  and  unyielding 
pressure  of  evolution  and  is  now  the  horse.  What, 
then,  happened  to  that  unyielding  and  irresistible  pres- 
sure that  it  failed  to  carry  along  with  it  the  Eocene 
whale  which,  instead  of  coming  up,  up,  up,  in  com- 
fortable accommodation  to  the  indispensable  require- 
ments of  evolution,  has  conducted  itself,  perhaps  be- 
cause it  had  flippers,  with  so  much  flippant  indiffer- 
ence to  the  pre-opinions,  pre-assumptions  and  pre- 
requisites of  those  who  would  have  had  it  reverse  its 
procedure? 

They  start  you  off  with  something  very  small  as  the 
progenitor  of  the  Eocene  Eohippus,  but  the  Eocene 
Eohippus  and  the  Eocene  whale  had  a  common  ances- 
tor. Why,  therefore,  was  the  progenitor  of  the  little 
squirrel-like  creature  lagging  along  the  line  of  evolu- 
tion while  the  whale  was  attaining  a  length  of  seventy 
feet?  Everything  went  forward  very  nicely  with  the 
little  Eocene  squirrel-like  creature,  yet  we  see  that 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  183 

something  must  have  stopped  altogether  while  its  con- 
temporary, the  Eocene  whale,  was  making  such  mon- 
strous advance.  But  this  is  the  very  apex  of  paradox, 
for  we  see  that  the  little  Eocene  squirrel-like  creature 
didn't  stop  at  all,  but  kept  going  right  on,  whereas  the 
monstrous  advance  of  its  contemporary,  the  Eocene 
whale,  is  seen  to  be  no  advance  of  any  kind  whatsoever 
but  in  truth  a  sprag  in  the  cogs  of  evolution. 

Graudray,  "Les  Enchainements  du  Monde  Animal," 
says:  "We  may  question  these  strange  and  gigantic 
sovereigns  of  the  Tertiary  oceans  as  to  their  progeni- 
tors but  they  leave  us  without  reply." 

Wings,  Hands  and  Feet 

The  bat,  too,  is  quite  as  mysterious  and  upsetting 
as  the  melodrama  of  the  same  name  which  attained  its 
climax  as  a  producer  of  thrills  and  creeps  in  mid-sea- 
son 1921. 

Appearing  at  the  same  time  as  the  "ancestors"  of 
the  horse  it  immediately  flew  over  both  hemispheres 
with  wings  fully  developed.  The  evolutionists,  while 
preferring  to  keep  quiet  on  the  subject,  are  neverthe- 
less forced  to  admit  an  entire  absence  of  any  trace  of 
intermediate  form  preceding  the  bat.  Its  wings  are 
like  our  own  human  hands.  That  is  why  they  had  to 
start  the  first  horse  with  five  toes.  The  evolutionist 
sees  modifications  of  the  same  structure  in  the  paws  of 
cats  and  dogs,  the  hoofs  of  horse  and  cattle,  the  flippers 
of  whales  and  porpoises,  etc.,  yet  the  foot  of  the  ape 
is  scarcely  so  much  a  foot  as  a  HAND!  "No  human 
foot  has  ever  been  seen,"  says  Professor  Arthur  Keith 
("The  Human  Body,"  1910,  p.  77),  "either  in  human 
foetus  or  in  primitive  native  races  in  which  the  great 
toe  was  separated  like  a  thumb,  as  is  the  case  in  all 
apes."    Yet  we  see  in  the  hands  of  man  the  same  bones 


184  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

as  are  to  be  seen  in  the  tortoise,  and  in  the  foot  of  man 
we  see  the  same  elements  as  in  the  foot  of  the  lizard. 

In  order,  by  the  slowly  acquired  accumulation  of  in- 
finitesimal differences  in  gigantic  periods  of  time,  to 
develop  the  primitive  generalized  fore-limb  from 
which  all  these  diverse  forms  evolved,  the  bat  before 
acquiring  a  wing  capable  of  flight  would  have  had  to 
have  countless  hosts  of  ancestors,  millions  of  them, 
and  man  should  be  not  a  descendant  of  the  ape  so  much 
as  a  cross  between  a  tortoise  and  a  lizard. 

Yet  of  all  these  not  a  solitary  trace  remains.  Mi- 
vart  (" Genesis  of  Species,' '  p.  130)  marvels  over  this 
abysmal  gap  in  the  theory  of  the  evolutionist.  ' '  When- 
ever the  remains  of  bats  have  been  found,' '  he  says, 
"they  have  presented  the  exact  type  of  existing 
forms."  Why  did  evolution  quit  its  job?  Why  did 
evolution  go  to  the  tortoise  for  a  human  hand  and  to 
the  lizard  for  a  human  foot  when  the  ape  was  ever  so 
much  nearer? 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  ("Chain  of  Life,"  p.  227)  adds  to 
the  confusion  by  asking :  ' '  Besides,  if  from  the  Eocene 
to  the  present  (while  the  ancestors  of  the  horse  were 
undergoing  such  wonderful  transformations)  the  bats 
have  remained  the  same,  how  long  would  it  take  to  de- 
velop an  animal  with  ordinary  feet,  like  those  of  a 
shrew,  into  a  bat  ? ' ' 

How  long,  oh,  Lord,  how  long? 

But  perhaps  the  bat  is  an  exception  among  flying 
things?  On  the  contrary,  the  same  holds  good  of  other 
flying  creatures — birds,  pterodactyles  (flying  lizards), 
etc.  No  trace  of  any  of  these  creatures  is  found  while 
their  wings  were  in  the  making. 

"Yet,"  says  Mivart,  "had  such  a  slow  mode  of  or- 
igin as  Darwinians  (and  genetic  evolutionists  gener- 
ally) contend  for,  operated  exclusively  in  all  cases,  it 
is  absolutely  incredible  that  bats,  birds  and  pterodac- 


.  ? 


© 


C  — 

c 


d 

O 


C3 

r. 


£  a 

o 

t    z 

> 


^  v"1 
"c  _, 

■4-    ~ 
O 

o 


o 
O 

O 

s 


~  ~~       c3 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  185 

tyles  should  have  left  the  remains  they  have,  and  yet 
not  a  single  relic  be  preserved  in  any  one  instance  of 
any  of  these  different  forms  of  wing  in  their  incipient 
and  relatively  imperfect  functional  condition. ff 

The  pedigree  of  the  rattlesnake's  family  we  cannot 
even  imagine.  Like  so  many  other  creatures  they  defy 
connection  with  the  general  body.  "The  number  of 
forms,"  says  Mivart,  "represented  by  many  individ- 
uals, YET  BY  NO  TRANSITIONAL  ONES,  is  so 
great  that  only  two  or  three  can  be  selected  as  exam- 
ples. Thus  those  remarkable  fossil  reptiles,  the 
Icthyosauria  and  Plesiosauria,  extended,  through  the 
secondary  period,  probably  over  the  great  part  of  the 
globe.  Yet  no  single  transitional  form  has  yet  been 
met  with  in  spite  of  the  multitudinous  individuals  pre- 
served. Again,  with  their  modern  representatives,  the 
Cetacea  (whales,  dolphins  and  porpoises),  one  or  two 
aberrant  forms  alone  have  been  found,  but  no  series 
of  transitional  ones  indicating  minutely  the  line  of 
descent.  This  group  of  whales  is  a  very  marked  one, 
and  it  is  curious,  on  Darwinian  principles,  that  so  few 
instances  tending  to  indicate  its  mode  of  origin  should 
have  presented  themselves.  Here,  as  in  the  bats,  we 
might  surely  expect  that  some  relics  of  unquestionably 
incipient  stages  of  its  development  would  have  been 
left. ' '    And  so  with  plants ! 

Inckeasing  Complications 

Professor  W.  C.  Williamson  ("Essays  and  Ad- 
dresses,' '  Owen's  College,  Manchester,  p.  251)  bewil- 
dered by  the  problems  of  primeval  vegetation  in  their 
relation  to  the  theory  of  evolution,  writes:  "If  these 
generic  types  (of  plants)  first  came  before  us  in  such 
clearly  defined  forms,  when  and  where  did  the  transi- 
tional states  make  their  appearance ?" 


186  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Our  manuals  of  zoology  and  botany  contain  the 
names  and  descriptions  of  400,000  living  species  of 
animals  and  200,000  living  species  of  plants.  Why,  if 
species  have  descended  from  other  species  by  fine 
gradations,  do  we  not  see  everywhere  innumerable 
transitional  forms?  Why  is  not  all  nature  in  a  mud- 
dled welter  of  confusion  instead  of  the  species  being, 
as  we  see  them,  so  sharply,  so  radically  and  so  won- 
rously  defined? 

"Unfortunately,  so  far  as  the  vegetable  kingdom  is 
concerned,  we  have  as  yet  failed  to  discover  any  traces 
of  these  mysterious  strata  or  hypothetical  continents 
in  which  the  transitions  from  one  plant-type  to  an- 
other were  being  brought  about.  We  have  no  evidence 
that  unaided  nature  has  produced  a  single  new  type 
during  the  historical  period.  We  can  only  conclude 
that  the  wonderful  outburst  of  genetic  activity  which 
characterized  the  Tertiary  age  was  due  to  some  un- 
known factor,  which  then  operated  with  an  energy  to 
which  the  earth  was  a  stranger,  BOTH  PREVIOUSLY 
AND  SUBSEQUENTLY.  This  unexplained  outburst 
of  new  life  demands  the  recognition  of  some  factor  not 
hitherto  admitted  into  the  calculations  of  the  evolu- 
tionist's school. "  They  are  determined  not  to  recog- 
nize God,  yet  confess  the  necessity  of  recognizing  some 
factor  not  hitherto  admitted  into  their  formula. 

In  the  record  of  fossil  fishes  Professor  Williamson 
notes  the  fact  that  amongst  the  very  earliest  represen- 
tatives of  this  class,  even  in  the  upper  Silurian,  are 
found  remains  of  sharks  which  he  regards  as  the  high- 
est order  of  fish,  and  in  the  Devonian  and  Carbonifer- 
ous above  are  found  the  remains  of  Ganoids,  armor- 
clad  like  the  sturgeon.  Yet  nowhere  below  the  chalk 
is  found  a  single  scale  of  Cycloids  or  Ctenoids,  which 
as  regards  scale  development,  nervous  system  and  re- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  187 

productive  organs  are  far  below  the  sharks  instead 
of  higher  up  on  the  evolutionary  ladder. 

Nor  are  these  Cycloids  or  Ctenoids  above  the  Gan- 
oids, where  they  ought  to  be  if  the  evolutionary  theory 
is  to  be  maintained.  "To  complicate  matters  still 
more,"  says  Williamson,  "the  skeleton  of  Cycloids 
and  Ctenoids  is  more  highly  organized  than  that  of  the 
others,  and  it  is  thus  equally  impossible  to  describe 
them  as  progressive  or  as  retrogressive  types." 

All  this  positive  evidence,  all  this  negative  evidence, 
all  this  lack  of  evidence  of  any  kind  should  demonstrate 
the  folly  of  the  theory  that  the  whole  organic  world 
originated  in  one  primitive  cell  under  an  accidental 
chemic  urge  that  has  never  repeated  itself.  Moreover, 
it  should  show  the  folly  of  the  theory  that  the  animal 
and  vegetable  kingdoms  emerged  from  the  same  ances- 
tral cell. 

Looking  to  De  Vries 

This  theory  of  the  emergence  of  all  animal  and  veg- 
etable life  from  the  same  ancestral  cell  is  called  "mono- 
phyletic  evolution,"  the  chief  objective  of  which  is  to 
dismiss  God  and  His  creative  acts  from  the  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  life.  Hence  the  extraordinary  de- 
mand for  millions  and  millions  of  years  in  order  to  pro- 
vide the  limitless  time  periods  essential  to  the  working- 
out  of  the  millions  of  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal 
life  on  this  planet.  The  contradictions  involved  in  the 
tremendous  groups  of  irreconcilable  phenomena  of 
which  the  few  preceding  instances  are  typical  must  be 
explained  somehow. 

Edwin  Grant  Conklin,  professor  of  biology,  Prince- 
ton University,  attempts  an  explanation  of  these  many 
curious  difficulties  when  he  says  ("The  Direction  of 
Human  Evolution,"  p.  19)  :  "In  all  these  paths  of 
evolution  progress  is  most  rapid  at  first  and  it  then 


188  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

slows  down  until  it  stops  ...  it  may  be  compared  to 
a  flow  of  lava  which  rushes  forward  while  it  is  at  white 
heat  and  fresh  out  of  the  crater,  but  goes  more  and 
more  slowly  as  it  cools  until  it  stops  altogether ;  if  the 
central  stream  remains  fluid  ...  it  may  burst  out  and 
again  flow  rapidly  in  one  direction  or  another  until  it 
again  cools  and  stops. ' ' 

Struck  by  the  amazing  lack  of  uniformity  in  what  is 
called  "the  rate  of  evolution,' '  its  proponents  must 
look  to  De  Vries  for  help.  De  Vries  believed  there 
were  periods  of  rapid  change  alternating  with  periods 
of  fixed  stability  in  the  history  of  species.  Consequent- 
ly we  find  the  idea  of  "  periodic  advances  or  waves  of 
evolution. ' ' 

Everywhere  we  see  stability  persisting  through  "the 
millions  of  years "  and  yet  one  of  evolution's  most  per- 
sistent demands  is  "progress  in  the  sense  of  increas- 
ing complexity  of  organization. ' ' 

Professor  Conklin  dismisses  the  difficulty  by  a  para- 
graph, which  when  thoughtfully  scrutinized  must  be  a 
source  of  deep  distress  to  many  of  his  colleagues.  He 
says  (p.  21) :  "One  need  only  recall  the  palaeontologi- 
cal  history  of  dinosaurs,  elephants,  camels,  etc.,  to 
realize  that,  measured  by  geological  time,  organisms 
rather  quickly  reach  the  limit  of  their  progress  in  any 
particular  line.  Diversities  may  continue  to  appear 
in  all  these  types.  Many  new  species  have  evolved  (sic) 
and  are  still  appearing  (sic),  there  have  been  diversi- 
fication and  adaptation  almost  without  limit,  BUT 
PROGRESS  IN  THE  SENSE  OF  INCREASING 
COMPLEXITY  OF  ORGANIZATION  HAS  PRAC- 
TICALLY COME  TO  AN  END. 

The  significance  of  another  admission  of  this  mod- 
ern Princeton  professor  is  overwhelming.  Announc- 
ing that  one-celled  organisms  reached  their  utmost 
limits  of  complexity  millions  of  years  ago,  he  crosses 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  189 

the  stream  of  life  and  reviews  the  higher  animals  and 
plants  in  all  their  multiplication  of  cells,  tissues,  or- 
gans, systems,  metameres,  and  zooids  which,  he  says, 
p.  20,  "enormously  increased  the  possibilities  of  spe- 
cialization within  each  of  these  larger  units  of  organ- 
ization, BUT  FOR  MILLIONS  OP  YEARS  THERE 
HAS  BEEN  LITTLE  FURTHER  PROGRESS  IN 
THIS  DIRECTION  OF  MULTIPLICITY  AND  COM- 
PLEXITY.' ' 

Whence,  then,  came  man  with  his  extraordinary  com- 
plexity of  organization?  The  answer  is  lost  in  those 
"millions  of  years,"  but  even  for  man  not  a  single  one 
of  the  most  extreme  evolutionists  has  ever  claimed 
millions  of  years.  They  can  't  ask  for  much  more  than 
30,000  years  for  their  Neanderthal  men,  and  yet,  al- 
though we  have  seen  that  the  Neanderthal  men  are  in 
every  sense  modern  when  compared  with  many  whites 
and  even  high  types  when  compared  with  modern 
blacks,  they  try  to  push  the  Neanderthals  back  far 
enough  to  get  them  into  the  class  of  "missing  links." 
Stumped  on  all  sides  it  is  obvious  that  comparative 
anatomy,  as  judged  by  palasontological  evidence,  is  the 
dead  trunk  of  a  branchless  tree  in  the  theory  of  man's 
descent  from  an  ape. 

Wonderful  Variations 

That  the  systematic  species  are  indeed  capable  of 
beautiful  and  wonderful  variations  would  seem  to  be 
fully  demonstrated  in  numerous  particulars.  The  seeds 
of  the  same  plant  sown  on  the  hills  and  in  the  valleys 
result  in  all  sorts  of  variations.  The  artificial  intro- 
duction by  hypodermic  of  microscopic  organisms 
(germs)  and  the  artificial  manipulation  of  the  food  of 
the  plant  are  quickly  reflected  in  the  external  appear- 
ance. 


190  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

An  abundance  of  potassium  in  the  soil  leads  to  the 
development  of  stem,  flowers  and  fruits  or  to  what 
may  be  regarded  as  the  maturing  of  the  plants,  whereas 
in  the  absence  of  potassium  the  growth  of  the  leaves 
is  more  directly  favored,  the  flowers  and  fruits  re- 
maining backward  and  immature. 

Oats  mature  less  fully  and  completely  in  the  ab- 
sence of  silicon,  thus  establishing  evidence  of  the  aid  of 
that  mineral  in  the  metabolism  of  the  plant.  The  com- 
position of  the  soil  determines  largely  the  character 
of  the  plant's  development,  exerting  a  vast  influence 
upon  the  variety  of  the  species,  the  different  individ- 
uals of  which  are  influenced  accordingly. 

It  has  been  conclusively  established  that  in  the  ab- 
sence or  through  the  deficiency  of  this  or  that  food 
mineral  others  may  be  absorbed  in  unnatural  propor- 
tions and  combinations.  Not  only  does  the  plant  thus 
lose  its  natural  immunity  to  disease  by  the  breaking 
down  of  its  normal  resistance  to  invading  organisms, 
but  so  also  does  the  animal  for  the  same  reasons  de- 
velop a  tissue  soil  favorable  to  the  growth  of  patho- 
genic bacteria  and  to  structural  modifications  as  well. 
One  animal  or  plant  may  be  dwarfed  under  the  influ- 
ence of  alkaloids.  Favorable  soil  may  produce  a  giant 
species  of  plant  from  an  average  seed,  and  artificial 
stimulation  of  the  glands  may  be  followed  by  the  elon- 
gation of  the  bones  of  man. 

These  influences,  which  the  writer  believes  have  a 
direct  bearing  upon  the  observations  of  Wasmann 
with  respect  to  ants  and  their  guests  as  well  as  upon 
the  observations  of  De  Vries  with  respect  to  the  prim- 
rose, are  extensively  treated  in  "Science  of  Eating,' ' 
George  H.  Doran  Company,  New  York.  In  the  Bo- 
tanical Garden,  Innsbruck,  mountain  and  valley  forms 
of  the  same  mother  plant  (Brassica)  are  shown  to  visi- 
tors who  marvel  over  their  dissimilarity  in  appearance. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  191 

The  observations  of  De  Vries  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate instances  in  which  considerable  variation  can  sud- 
denly appear.  The  reader  is  warned  that  the  several 
pages  following  will  be  very  dry  for  the  reason  that 
the  subject  is  appallingly  complex  and  so  crowded 
with  seemingly  unreconcilable  contradictions  that  the 
passing  treatment  accorded  it  here  must  take  a  great 
deal  for  granted,  particularly  a  familiarity  with  the 
work  of  Morgan,  with  whose  views  the  larger  number 
of  American  biologists  would  seem  to  be  in  sympathy 
at  present.  It  may  well  be  that  within  a  few  years  a 
great  deal  more  will  be  known  concerning  genes,  chro- 
mosomes, etc.  As  regards  what  is  now  known  it  would 
certainly  be  unscientific  to  base  positive  arguments  for 
or  against  evolution.  The  whole  sky  of  genetics  is 
filled  with  rapidly  moving  clouds.  However,  as  the 
Morgan  investigations  are  going  on,  a  clearer  scien- 
tific vision  in  these  matters  may  be  looked  for  in  the 
future. 

The  following  fragments  are  not  stressed ;  they  are 
merely  introduced  in  passing  to  more  important  and 
more  fascinating  " proof s"  and  disproofs. 

In  1866  De  Vries  took  nine  well  developed  specimens 
of  the  evening  primrose  (Oenothera  Lamarckiana), 
possessing  great  powers  of  fertility,  and  transplanted 
them  from  Hilversum,  a  town  between  Amsterdam  and 
Utrecht,  to  his  own  garden  in  Amsterdam.  Within 
seven  generations  he  claimed  to  have  produced  from 
these  nine  single  specimens  about  50,000  plants,  among 
which  approximately  800  deviated  from  the  original 
type.  These  sudden  deviations  from  the  parental  type, 
with  no  ready-made  explanation  to  account  for  them, 
were  termed  "mutations."  The  experiments  of  the 
Abbe  Mendel,  wholly  ignored  from  1865  to  1900,  when 
they  were  suddenly  " discovered"  by  Correns,  De 
Vries  and  Tschermak  simultaneously,  seemed  to  show 


192  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

that  by  crossing  two  races  of  plants  differing  in  one 
or  in  several  characters  (peas,  for  instance,  with  dif- 
ferent flowers  or  color  of  seed)  new  combinations  can 
be  formed  according  to  mathematical  laws,  which, 
when  care  is  taken  to  ensure  self-fertilization,  are  con- 
stant. 

The  experiments  seemed  to  render  it  probable  that 
accidental  qualities,  size,  color,  length  of  life,  etc.,  are 
connected  with  certain  corporeal  parts  (genes)  and 
maintain  an  independence  in  the  organism.  If,  for 
instance,  there  be  crossed  a  ' '  Dwarf  "  race  with  a  very 
" Large' '  race  it  may  happen  that  all  the  progeny  may 
be  " Large"  or  all  "Dwarf,"  according  to  whether  the 
gene  of  the  " Large"  or  the  gene  of  the  " Dwarf "  be- 
comes utilized. 


CHAPTER  XV 

Chromosomes  and  Genes 

Chromosomes  and  genes — Seeking  gains — not  losses. 

The  gene  has  come  to  mean  in  the  modern  study  of 
heredity  inspired  by  Mendel  those  certain  characters 
or  factors  that  are  definite,  separable  " units' '  capable 
of  distribution  and  redistribution  in  various  ways,  but 
always  in  such  a  particular  way  as  to  retain  their  own 
individual  peculiarities.  It  is  generally  assumed  that 
the  distribution  of  the  gene  follows  in  general  the  laws 
of  Mendelism,  but  a  Mendelian  character  may  not  al- 
ways be  an  obvious  character.  What  seems  to  be  a 
"unit"  in  its  external  manifestation  may  be  made  up 
of  many  Mendelian  units.  The  whole  subject  is  ex- 
ceedingly complex  and  would  not  be  lugged  into  this 
discussion  were  it  not  for  those  De  Vriesian  primroses. 

It  is  held  that  once  genetic  analysis  has  led  us  to  the 
recognition  of  a  strictly  "unit"  character  it  becomes 
evident  that  such  a  character  must  be  one  of  a  pair  of 
characters,  only  one  of  which  goes  to  a  certain  germ 
cell,  the  other  to  another  germ  cell,  following  strictly 
the  distribution  of  the  two  members  of  a  pair  of  chro- 
mosomes. The  chromosomes  have  inspired  many  vol- 
umes. Among  the  latest  which  the  student  may  see 
are  "The  Cell,"  1919,  by  Edmund  B.  Wilson,  and  "Life 
and  Death,  Heredity  and  Evolution  in  Unicellular  Or- 
ganisms," by  H.  S.  Jennings,  1920.  Neither  Darwin 
nor  Haeckel  ever  suspected  the  existence  of  the  chro- 

193 


194  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

mosomes  which  every  student  of  biology  may  now  ex- 
amine under  the  microscope  for  himself, 

"Each  parent,''  says  Jennings,  p.  170,  "hands  on 
bodily  to  the  offspring,  through  the  germ  cells,  certain 
packets  of  chemicals.  Since  these  are  directly  trans- 
mitted from  parent  to  offspring,  while  the  later  char- 
acters are  secondarily  derived  from  them,  we  may  call 
these  packets  of  chemicals  the  primary  hereditary  char- 
acters. These  packets  are  present  in  each  animal  in  a 
certain  definite  number,  stored  within  the  nucleus; 
they  are  called  chromosomes.  Individuals  which  get 
different  sets  of  packets  from  their  parents  develop 
differently  even  under  the  same  outer  conditions ;  that 
is,  they  show  different  hereditary  characteristics.' ' 

This  is  believed  to  explain  how  it  happens  that  the 
offspring  of  the  two  members  of  a  pair  may  resemble 
each  other  on  the  whole,  yet  are  hereditarily  diverse. 

At  any  rate  the  pairs  of  characters  of  which  the 
strictly  "unit"  character  must  be  one  are  called  alle- 
lomorphs. "When  two  similar  allelomorphs  are  found  in 
the  same  germ  cell,  one  derived  from  the  mother  the 
other  from  the  father,  the  offspring  will  possess  them 
both  and  be  influenced  accordingly,  whereas  when  the 
two  allelomorphs  are  not  similar  the  offspring  will  be 
influenced  in  another  direction. 

Thus  in  the  shifting  and  reshifting  of  these  allelo- 
morphs in  successive  generations,  and  even  in  the  same 
generation  of  different  individuals,  any  given  pair  of 
allelomorphs  may  not  result  in  the  same  character  in 
all  the  different  individuals  containing  them.  On  the 
contrary,  one  or  more  of  such  characters  may  be  re- 
placed by  others.  Moreover,  the  various  pairs  of  alle- 
lomorphs of  any  individual  may  become  separated  in  its 
offspring  so  that  certain  genes  formerly  associated  in 
one  individual  are  no  longer  found  together  in  others. 

Thus  the  chromosome  which  is  said  to  contain  the 


GOD— OH  GOETLLA  105 

genes  may  break,  and  the  two  or  more  parts  broken 
off  may  unite  with  the  corresponding  parts  of  another 
broken  chromosome.  The  chromosomes  are  thus  con- 
ceived to  be  linear  bodies  in  which  the  materials  repre- 
senting the  genes  are  arranged  in  a  well-established 
order  in  a  series  so  that  the  whole  may  be  pictured  as  a 
long  tube  containing  an  assorted  package  of  biochemic 
substances,  each  destined  to  be  activated  at  some  point 
of  time  in  the  life  history  of  the  individual. 

In  the  matter  of  variation  the  differences  between 
individuals  are  thus  explained  as  being  due  to  different 
genes.  Hence  when  a  character  appears  in  the  off- 
spring that  was  not  visible  in  its  parent  it  is  described 
as  the  coming  to  light  of  something  that  was  hidden 
in  the  parent,  for  which  reason  such  newly  appearing 
characters  are  in  realitv  not  new,  but  attributable  to  a 
genetic  constitution  of  long  standing.  Luther  Bur- 
bank  has  discovered  that  to  get  a  new  and  pleasing 
odor  it  may  often  be  sufficient  simply  to  lose  one  bad 
element  in  an  old  odor.  This  brings  in  the  complica- 
tions between  natural  selection  and  artificial  selection. 

Artificial  selection  selects  exceptional,  most  widely 
divergent  characters  which  appear  only  in  a  few  indi- 
viduals, whereas  natural  selection  is  a  selection  of 
slight  differences  appearing  simultaneously  in  many 
individuals.  Artificial  selection  often  leads  to  morbid 
or  exaggerated  development,  to  a  sickly  disposition, 
to  an  undermining  of  the  whole  constitution,  whereas 
natural  selection  effects  no  injury  to  the  whole  consti- 
tution but  on  the  contrary  strengthens  and  betters  it. 
Artificial  selection  results  in  lack  of  stability.  Natural 
selection  remains  constant. 

"In  the  light  of  this  truth,"  says  Morgan  ("Evolu- 
tion and  Adaptation,"  1903)  "the  relation  between  the 
two  selective  theories  may  appear  quite  different  from 
the  interpretation  that  Darwin  gives  it.    We  may  well 


196  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

doubt  whether  nature  does  select  so  much  better  than 
does  man  and  whether  she  has  ever  made  new  species 
in  this  way."  Taking  a  strong  stand  against  natural 
selection  as  a  species-forming  factor  and  in  favor  of 
definite  variations  (De  Vriesian  mutations)  Morgan 
(Pop.  Sci.  Mo.,  May,  1905,  pp.  54-65)  says:  "They, 
the  selectionists,  have  never  hesitated  to  take  each  par- 
ticular character  of  an  animal  or  plant,  and  dress  it  up 
in  more  perfect  garment,  while  the  body  of  the  species, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  has  been  left  as  it  was  before.  There 
has  been  a  continual  tampering  with  the  characters  of 
the  organisms  with  the  laudable  intention  of  doing  with 
them  that  which  nature  herself  seems  unable  to  do, 
namely,  to  dissociate  them  from  the  rest  of  the  organ- 
ization and  perfect  them  in  this  way  or  in  that.  It  is 
this  meddling  with  the  fluctuating  characters  of  the 
species  that  has  been  the  characteristic  procedure  of 
the  Darwinians,  in  their  attempt  to  show  how  new  spe- 
cies have  been  created.  New  forms  on  the  Darwinian 
theory  are  supposed  to  be  created  by  a  process  of  pick- 
ing out  of  individual  differences.  If,  in  addition  to  this, 
Darwin  supposed  that  at  times  varieties  and  species 
crowd  each  other  out  nothing  new  is  thereby  created.' ' 

Here  the  biometrician  and  the  Mendelist  part  com- 
pany. The  biometrician  says :  ' '  Selection  is  the  proc- 
ess of  accumulating  infinitesimal  differences  through 
gigantic  periods  of  time."  The  Mendelist  says :  "Se- 
lection is  a  process  of  combining  and  sorting  out 
genes.' '  The  biometrician  says:  "Selection  is  cre- 
ative, actually  producing  new  characters."  The  Men- 
delist says:  "Selection  merely  assorts,  and  such  ef- 
fects of  variation  as  are  sometimes  said  to  be  found 
are  merely  due  to  new  combinations  of  characters  that 
were  already  present." 

De  Vries  himself  says  ("Darwin  and  Modern  Sci- 
ence," p.  70) :    "Natural  selection  acts  as  a  sieve;  it 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  197 

does  not  single  out  the  best  variations  but  it  simply 
destroys  the  larger  number  of  those  which  are  from 
some  cause  or  another,  unfit  for  their  present  environ- 
ment. In  this  way  it  keeps  the  strains  up  to  the  re- 
quired standard,  and  in  special  circumstances  may  even 
improve  them." 

Back  in  1590  an  apothecary  of  Heidelberg,  one  Herr 
Springer,  was  convinced  that  there  had  suddenly  ap- 
peared in  his  garden  a  plant  called  Chelidonian  lacini- 
atum,  a  mutation  from  Chelidonian  majus.  Upon  this 
case  and  the  case  of  the  Sherley  poppy,  together  with 
his  own  series  of  evening  primrose  cases,  De  Vries  re- 
lied in  giving  to  the  world  what  he  regarded  as  "in- 
stances of  evolution  actually  evolving."  The  odd  thing 
about  these  instances  is  that  they  should  be  so  extra- 
ordinarily complicated  and  so  astoundingly  rare. 

They  are  like  "the  instance  of  evolution  actually 
evolving"  in  the  case  of  a  butcher  giving  rise  to  a 
Shakespeare,  a  true  and  a  very  rare  "mutation,"  as 
sudden  and  unexpected  as  it  was  typically  De  Vriesian. 

It  is  not  at  all  clear  that  the  Oenothera  on  which 
De  Vries  elaborated  his  theory  is  really  a  "unit"  type. 
It  is  probably  a  hybrid,  in  which  case  the  forms  noted 
by  De  Vries  would  merely  represent  a  process  of  dis- 
integration or  splitting  up  of  the  hybrid  into  its  original 
types,  possibly  along  Mendelian  lines. 

Seeking  Gains — Not  Losses 

Like  all  the  other  "demonstrations,"  this  case,  so 
rare,  is  terrifically  complicated.  Many  scientists  stress 
their  belief  that  most  "mutations"  are  due  to  the  loss 
of  one  or  more  of  the  characters  of  the  wild  type. 
These  "retrogressive  mutations,"  as  De  Vries  himself 
characterizes  them,  follow  Mendel's  law  of  heredity. 
But  science  is  not  looking  for  losses  along  the  path  of 


198  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

evolution.  On  the  contrary  science  insists  she  is  look- 
ing for  gains,  additions. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  so  many  scientists  are  reluc- 
tant to  admit  that  characters  which  look  like  additions 
in  domesticated  or  cultivated  forms  are  really  due  to 
the  LOSS  of  something  which  in  the  past  has  prevented 
the  appearance  of  the  hidden  factor.  Out  of  the  con- 
fusion one  thing  is  certain.  By  exhibiting  a  discontinu- 
ous method  of  evolution  in  actual  operation  they  com- 
pletely smash  the  Darwinian  theory  of  infinitesimal 
steps  over  gigantic  periods  of  time.  No  more  did  they 
look  for  the  breakdown  of  the  Darwinian  theory  at 
their  own  hands  than  they  now  look  for  the  break- 
down of  the  De  Vries  theory. 

The  chief  criticism  of  De  Vries'  views  is  directed 
against  his  knowledge  of  the  material  with  which  he 
worked.  Mendelism  demands,  as  an  all-important  fac- 
tor, that  we  know  the  genetic  constitution  of  the  organ- 
isms under  analysis.  De  Vries  was  never  able  to  give 
an  adequate  analysis  of  his  primroses,  and  there  are 
many  lines  of  evidence  that  render  doubtful  his  gen- 
eral conclusions  and  especially  his  concept  of  a  "  muta- 
tion.' '  Hybrids,  regularly,  give  rise  to  a  series  of 
aberrant  forms,  some  types  of  which  are  frequently 
repeated  while  different  types  are  produced  in  differ- 
ent proportions.  In  other  respects  Oenothera  Lamar- 
ckiana  shows  characteristics  that  have  become  asso- 
ciated with  hybrids.  In  some  of  its  mutants  the  pollen 
is  non-functioning;  many  of  the  ovules  are  abortive; 
many  of  the  fertilized  seeds  themselves  do  not  develop ; 
there  is  a  high  rate  of  mortality  even  among  those 
which  do  develop. 

On  this  point  Kellogg  (" Darwinism  Today,"  1907, 
p.  368)  is  extremely  skeptical.  uAsa  matter  of  fact," 
he  says,  "the  Lamarckian  primrose  seems  to  be  prac- 
tically extinct  as  a  wild  species.    De  Vries  found  speci- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  199 

mens  in  three  botanical  collections  in  the  United  States. 
These  specimens  were  collected  in  Florida  and  Ken- 
tucky. However,  since  these  specimens  were  taken 
the  species  has  not  been  observed,  perhaps  on  account 
of  lack  of  close  observation,  perhaps  because  it  has 
actually  disappeared.  Therefore  the  question  whether 
the  Lamarckian  primrose  mutates  in  wild  condition 
remains  undecided.' ' 

Alas,  it  is  too  bad  indeed  that  such  an  important 
plant,  seemingly  like  no  other  plant  in  all  the  world, 
should  have  been  so  ignored,  neglected,  and  forgotten 
that  now,  when  so  much  depends  on  it,  it  has  disap- 
peared and  is  nowhere  to  be  found. 

"Klebs,  the  eminent  plant  physiologist,"  says  Kel- 
logg, "keenly  criticizes  the  mutation  theory.  Copcland 
finds  in  the  mutations  of  De  Vries  nothing  radically 
different  either  in  character  or  behavior  from  the  Dar- 
winian fluctuating  variations."  (See  "Darwinism  To- 
day," 1907,  pp.  372-373).  Having  abandoned  Darwin 
and  come  to  De  Vries,  there  would  thus  seem  to  be  a 
desire  to  return  to  Darwin.  On  this  point  Kellogg  is 
clear  and  emphatic.  He  says,  under  the  caption,  ' '  The 
Deathbed  of  Darwinism,"  in  the  introduction  to  "Dar- 
winism Today,"  1907:  "...  Numerous  books  and 
papers  are  appearing  now  in  such  numbers  and  from 
such  a  variety  of  reputable  sources  as  to  reveal  the 
existence  among  biologists  and  philosophers  of  a  wide- 
spread belief  in  the  marked  weakening,  at  least,  if  not 
serious  indisposition  of  Darwinism.  A  few  of  these 
books  and  papers  from  scientific  sources  even  suggest 
that  their  writers  see  shadows  of  a  deathbed. 

"There  is  something  very  seriously  to  be  heeded  in 
this  chorus  of  criticism  and  protest,  and  wholly  to  stop 
one's  ears  to  these  criticisms  is  to  refuse  enlighten- 
ment and  to  show  prejudice. ' ' 

The  remarkable  fact  has  now  been  established  that 


200  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

every  species  of  plant  or  animal  has  a  fixed  and  char- 
acteristic number  of  chromosomes.  In  many  of  the 
lower  animals  the  number  of  chromosomes  to  the  cell 
has  been  determined  positively.  With  respect  to  man 
the  number  is  now  thought  to  be  twenty-four.  Wieman 
(1917)  asserts  that  the  number  in  both  negro  and  white 
spermatogonia  is  twenty-four,  thereby  agreeing  with 
Duesberg's  (1906)  count. 

Various  investigators,  Bardeleden,  1892,  Fleming, 
1897,  Willcox,  1900,  Duesberg,  1906,  Farmer,  Moore 
and  Walker,  1906,  Moore  and  Arnold,  1906,  Guyer, 
1910,  Montgomery,  1912,  Gutherz,  1912,  Winnawater, 
1912,  Wieman,  1913  and  1917,  arrive  at  different  counts 
through  the  difficulty  involved  in  examining  the  cell. 
However,  what  is  now  positively  known  with  respect 
to  many  simpler  forms  warrants  the  conclusions  that 
the  number  of  chromosomes  in  the  cells  of  any  individ- 
ual of  any  species  is,  with  few  exceptions,  constant. 
Thus  in  some  of  the  sharks  the  number  is  thirty-six; 
in  certain  gasteropods  it  is  thirty-two;  in  the  mouse, 
the  salamander,  the  trout,  the  lily,  it  is  twenty-four ;  in 
the  worm,  sagitta,  it  is  eighteen ;  in  the  ox  and  guinea 
pig  it  appears  to  be  sixteen ;  in  the  onion  it  is  sixteen ; 
in  the  grasshopper  it  is  twelve ;  in  certain  of  the  nema- 
todes it  is  eight. 

The  number  persists  through  all  the  cells  of  the 
body ;  thus  the  skin  cells,  tissue  cells,  liver  cells,  and  all 
the  other  cells  of  man  would  contain  the  same  number. 
At  this  point  a  remarkable  fact  occurs.  The  number 
in  all  the  species  is  reduced  one-half  during  the  matu- 
ration of  the  ova  and  spermatozoa  so  that  the  mature 
ova  and  spermatozoa  possess  just  half  as  many  chro- 
mosomes as  the  other  cells  of  the  body.  When  the  ma- 
ternal half  is  united  with  the  paternal  half  the  full 
number  is  thus  restored  to  the  cell  of  the  offspring. 
Thus  it  would  appear  that  the  chromosomes  are  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  201 

bearers  of  factors  in  heredity.  "We  have  thus,"  says 
Edmond  B.  Wilson  ("The  Cell,,,  1919,  p.  208),  "what 
must  be  reckoned  as  more  than  a  possibility  that  every 
cell  in  the  body  of  the  child  may  receive  from  each  par- 
ent not  only  half  of  its  chromatin  substance  but  one- 
half  of  its  chromosomes  as  distinct  and  individual  de- 
scendants of  those  of  the  parents. 

Into  what  new  world,  the  very  existence  of  which 
has  never  been  suspected,  these  facts  may  lead  no  one 
knows.  "The  results  of  genetic  research,"  says  Bate- 
son  ("Methods  and  Scope  of  Genetics,' '  1908,  p.  46), 
"are  so  bewilderingly  novel  that  we  need  time  and  an 
exhaustive  study  of  their  inter-relation  before  we  can 
hope  to  see  them  in  proper  value  and  perspective. 
From  a  survey  of  these  materials  we  see  something  of 
the  changes  which  will  have  to  be  made  in  the  orthodox 
edifice  (of  evolution)  to  admit  of  their  incorporation, 
but  he  must  be  rash  indeed  who  would  now  attempt  a 
comprehensive  reconstruction. ' ' 

At  this  writing,  1921,  no  scientist  may  foretell  what 
a  contrasted  examination  of  the  chromosomes  of  the 
chimpanzee,  gorilla,  orang,  gibbon  and  man  will  reveal, 
yet  the  old  dogmatic  certitude  of  the  evolutionists,  who 
have  heeded  none  of  the  bewildering  complexities  in- 
volved in  this  study,  persists,  as  if  it  were  indeed  a 
thing  upon  which  the  freakish  Trinil  Ape-Man,  Pilt- 
down  Ape-Man  and  Neanderthal  Ape-Man  might  look 
with  profound  contempt. 

The  chromosome  of  the  ant  cell,  for  instance,  may 
eventually  reveal  something  of  the  permanence  of  the 
species.  "W.  M.  Wheeler,"  says  Jacques  Loeb  ("The 
Organism  as  a  Whole,"  1916,  p.  43),  "in  his  investiga- 
tions of  the  ants  enclosed  in  amber  was  able  to  identify 
some  of  them  with  forms  living  today,  though  the  ants 
observed  in  the  amber  must  have  been  2,000,000  years 
old.    The  constancy  of  species,  i.e.,  the  permanence  of 


202  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

specificity,  may  therefore  be  considered  as  established 
as  far  back  as  two,  or  possibly  three,  hundred  millions 
of  years.  The  definiteness  and  the  constancy  of  each 
species  must  be  determined  by  something  equally  defin- 
ite and  constant  in  the  ape,  since  in  the  latter  the  spe- 
cies is  already  fixed  irrevocably .' ' 

Loeb  goes  on  to  show  that  species  are  generally  in- 
compatible with  each  other  and  that  any  attempt  at 
fusing  or  mixing  them  by  grafting  or  cross-fertiliza- 
tion is  futile.  These  are  hard  words  for  the  evolu- 
tionist, coming,  as  they  do,  from  the  Rockefeller  Insti- 
tute for  Medical  Research,  and  they  need  more  clearing 
up  than  is  seemingly  now  possible.  There  may  or  may 
not  be  any  significance  in  the  pairing  of  the  maternal 
and  paternal  chromosomes;  in  the  functioning  of  the 
so-called  genes;  in  the  definite  composition  of  the  egg 
cells  and  the  sperm  cells  before  they  are  ready  for  the 
production  of  a  new  individual,  yet  it  would  seem  to  be 
obvious  to  all  scientists  that  not  until  a  comparative 
study  of  the  chromosomes  of  man  and  ape  is  under- 
taken can  there  be  any,  even  remote,  justification  for 
the  continuance  of  the  man-ape  theory. 

Loeb  gives  the  following  definite  number  of  chromo- 
somes: Man  (probably)  twenty-four;  mouse,  twenty; 
snail,  twenty-two;  potato,  beetle,  eighteen;  cotton, 
twenty-eight ;  four  o  'clock,  sixteen ;  corn,  twenty ;  night 
shade,  thirty-six ;  tobacco,  twenty-four ;  tomato,  twelve ; 
wheat,  eight.  Obviously  the  number  twenty  in  the  case 
of  corn  and  mouse  would  not  indicate  that  corn  and 
mouse  are  members  of  the  same  species  or  that  the 
number  twenty-four  in  the  case  of  man  and  tobacco 
indicates  that  man  and  tobacco  are  members  of  the 
same  species.  Not  only  the  number  but  the  character, 
individuality,  composition,  form  and  conduct  of  the 
chromosomes  must  be  studied  if  the  evolutionist  is  to 
substitute  fact  for  opinion. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  203 

It  can  be  said  without  reservation  that  all  the  work 
done  during  the  last  generation  in  experimental  biol- 
ogy, including  all  its  divisions,  can  be  described  as  posi- 
tively not  establishing  the  FACT  of  evolution,  even 
though  there  can  be  no  rational  hostility  against  evolu- 
tion in  the  sense  of  universal  growth  and  development. 

One  might  as  well  deny  the  development  of  the  hu- 
man foetus.  The  whole  problem  of  evolution  is  to  de- 
termine how  much  in  nature  must  be  referred  to  a  di- 
rect creative  interference  and  how  much  may  be  left  to 
accidental  or  evolutional  causes.  But — the  work  of  the 
last  generation  has  accurately  defined  the  terms  hereto- 
fore loosely  employed  in  describing  certain  phenomena 
that  formerly  resulted  in  no  end  of  confusion  and  mis- 
understanding. Through  the  work  of  Morgan  and 
those  associated  with  him  we  have  obtained  an  insight 
into  the  mysteries  of  heredity.  We  have  a  new  con- 
cept of  the  mechanism  of  variation  and  certainly  it  can 
be  said  that  we  know  the  possibilities  and  the  limita- 
tions of  natural  selection. 

That  the  problem,  an  unfathomed  universe  of  prob- 
lems, still  confronting  the  true  scientist  should  be  pre- 
sented to  an  untrained  and  unsuspecting  public  as  hav- 
ing been  solved,  settled,  catalogued,  cut  and  dried,  and 
that  man's  descent  from  an  ape  has  been  established 
is  all  the  more  inexplicable  when  one  begins  to  observe 
that  the  "scientists"  who  thus  misrepresent  the  truth 
are  seemingly  immune  to  public  criticism,  on  the  part 
of  the  very  scientists  who  are  consecrating  their  lives 
to  a  sincere,  a  tireless  and  a  noble  effort  in  search  of 
data  free  from  taint. 

We  have  natural  selection  demanding  sexual  selec- 
tion, a  theory  that  has  completely  broken  down;  con- 
tinuous variation;  discontinuous  variation;  fluctuating 
variation;  Galton's  law  of  regression;  Delage  against 
Delboeuf;  PfefTer  against  Darwin;  WolfT  and  Weis- 


204  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

mann  on  degeneration  of  parts ;  De  Vries  against  Dar- 
win ;  Morgan  in  favor  of  De  Vries ;  Taylor  in  favor  of 
Darwin;  Plate  in  favor  of  the  inheritance  of  acquired 
characters,  and  against  Weismann's  principle  of  ger- 
minal selection ;  Cope  with  his  proof  that  natural  selec- 
tion cannot  make  new  characters;  Roux  against  nat- 
ural selection  and  Plate  against  Roux ;  the  encasement 
theory;  the  micromeric  theory;  Buffon's  theory;  Spen- 
cer's theory;  Nageli's  theory;  Hatschek's  theory;  Le 
Dantec's  chemic  theory;  Verworn's  biogen  hypothesis; 
neo-vitalism ;  Lamarckism;  orthogenesis;  orthoselec- 
tion ;  the  theory  of  metakinesis ;  Batesonism ;  Mendel- 
ism;  Davenportism ;  Osbornism. 

Of  course  we  might  expect  to  hear  Kellogg  exclaim : 
"But  I  do  not  know,  nor  in  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge  does  anyone  know,  nor  will  anyone  know 
until,  as  Brooks  says  of  another  problem,  we  find  out. 
We  are  ignorant;  terribly,  immensely  ignorant.  And 
our  work  is  to  learn. ' '  He  does  not  say  that  our  work 
is  to  present  opinions  as  facts.  He  does  not  say  that 
the  presentation  of  a  progressive  series  of  apes,  ape- 
men  and  men  is  a  desideratum  of  science.  He  refers 
to  Osborn  but  not  to  Osborn's  monkey  men. 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society, 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Head  of  Orang.  Compare  ear  with  ear  of  gorilla  for  astonishing 
difference  in  size  not  explained  by  evolutionists.  Note  su- 
periority of  brow.  The  supra-orbital  ridges  said  to  be  a 
proof  of  man's  descent  from  the  anthropoid  apes  are  con- 
spicuous by  their  absence,  although  many  white  men  possess 
them   to  a  marked   degree. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Bateson — A  Brilliant  Light 

Bateson — a  brilliant  light — What's  the  matter  with  us? — Confusion  and 
darkness — The  Standfuss  butterflies — Ants  and   their   guests. 

For  a  surgically  clean,  a  scientifically  unbiassed  and 
a  profoundly  humble  confession  of  the  bankruptcy  of 
the  too  long  popular  theory  of  evolution  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  great  William  Bateson,  whose  unchal- 
lenged conclusions  will  be  found  in  "Science,"  August 
28,  1914,  pp.  289-325.  Scientific  men  have  ever  been 
confused  by  the  descent  of  a  Shakespeare  from  a 
butcher.  They  are  puzzled  by  the  fact  that  the  father 
of  Beethoven  was  a  confirmed  drunkard  and  his  mother 
a  consumptive.  That  the  father  of  the  incomparable 
Caruso  was  a  mechanic  who  detested  music  would  or- 
dinarily make  the  evolutionist  pause  in  his  extravagant 
generalizations.  Bewildered  by  the  problems  of  hered- 
ity, William  Bateson,  acknowledged  by  all  modern 
scientists  to  be  the  foremost  living  authority  on  gene- 
tics, says  in  the  paper  above  referred  to :  "  Not  only 
does  embryology  give  no  direct  aid  but  the  failure  of 
cytology  (the  study  of  cell  organisms)  is  equally  com- 
plete. The  chromosomes  of  nearly  related  creatures 
may  be  utterly  different  in  number,  size  and  form.  If 
we  cannot  see  how  a  fowl  by  its  egg  and  its  sperm 
gives  rise  to  a  chicken  or  how  a  sweet  pea  from  its  ovule 
or  its  pollen  grain  produces  another  sweet  pea  we  at 
least  can  watch  the  system  by  which  the  differences  be- 
tween the  various  kinds  of  fowl  or  between  the  vari- 

205 


206  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

cms  kinds  of  sweet  pea  are  distributed  among  the  off- 
spring. .  .  .  Until  Mendel  began  this  analysis  nothing 
but  the  vaguest  answers  to  such  a  question  had  been  at- 
tempted. THE  EXISTENCE  OF  ANY  ORDERLY 
SYSTEM  OF  DESCENT  (denied  by  Haeckel)  WAS 
NEVER  EVEN  SUSPECTED." 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  ape-man  evolutionists  and 
of  all  the  other  evolutionists  to  stress  the  argument  of 
" blood."  Blood  was  looked  upon  as  a  fluid  that  might 
be  diluted  so  that  in  the  veins  of  a  man  might  flow 
seven-eighths  white  blood  and  one-eighth  negro  blood, 
or  four-eighths  of  each.  Says  Bateson :  ' '  Misconcep- 
tion was  especially  brought  in  describing  descent  in 
terms  of  blood.  Truer  notions  of  genetic  physiology 
are  given  by  the  Hebrew  expression  'seed.'  If  we 
speak  of  a  man  as  of  the  'blood  royal'  we  think  at 
once  of  plebeian  dilution,  but  if  we  say  he  is  'of  the 
seed  of  Abraham '  we  feel  something  of  the  perma- 
nence and  indestructibility  of  that  germ  which  can  be 
divided  and  scattered  among  all  nations,  but  remains 
recognizable  in  type  and  characteristics  after  four 
thousand  years.  An  organism  cannot  pass  on  to  off- 
spring a  factor  which  it  did  not  itself  receive  in  fer- 
tilization. ' ' 

Alas,  by  what  violence  of  imagination  are  we  to  trace 
man's  inheritance  of  the  art  faculty,  the  metaphysical 
faculty,  the  faculty  of  wit  and  humor,  the  faculty  of 
scientific  investigation,  to  the  seed  of  an  ape  or  of  any 
other  lower  animal,  without  the  intervention  of  God? 

On  this  point  Bateson  makes  a  feeble  effort  to  con- 
ceal his  impatience  by  exclaiming:  "Darwin  speaks 
no  more  with  philosophical  authority.  We  read  his 
scheme  of  evolution  as  we  would  those  of  Lucretius  or 
of  Lamarck.  Naturalists  may  still  be  found  expound- 
ing teleological  systems  (the  science  of  organic  adapta- 
tions) which  would  have  delighted  Dr.  Pangioss  him- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  207 

self,  but  at  the  present  time  few  are  misled.  .  .  .  Al- 
most the  last  shred  of  that  teleological  fustian  with 
which  Victorian  philosophers  loved  to  clothe  the  theory 
of  evolution  is  destroyed.  ...  As  a  chief  characteris- 
tic of  modern  evolutionary  thought  we  must  confess  to 
deep  but  irksome  humility  in  the  presence  of  great  vital 
problems.  Every  theory  of  evolution  must  be  such  as 
to  accord  with  the  facts  of  physics  and  chemistry,  a 
primary  necessity  to  which  our  predecessors  paid  small 
heed.  Of  the  physics  and  chemistry  of  life  we  know 
next  to  nothing.  Living  things  are  found  by  a  simpli 
experiment  to  have  powers  undreamed  of,  and  who 
knows  what  may  be  behind? " 

One  is  stirred  deeply  by  the  lofty  intellectual  integ- 
rity of  Bateson,  who,  despite  his  eminence  as  a  scien- 
tist, stands  with  bowed  head,  ashamed  of  the  unfound- 
ed and  unsupportable  generalizations  of  so  many  of 
his  evolutionary  colleagues.  With  the  utmost  solem- 
nity he  declares:  "Knowledge  of  heredity  has  so 
reacted  on  our  conceptions  of  variation  that  very  com- 
petent men  are  even  denying  that  variation  in  the  old 
sense  is  a  genuine  occurrence  at  all.  Do  we,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  find  in  the  world  about  us  variations  occur- 
ring of  such  a  kind  as  to  warrant  faith  in  a  contempor- 
ary progressive  evolution  V 

The  text  books  on  biology  and  zoology  now  in  the 
hands  of  the  students  of  high  schools,  colleges  and  uni- 
versities throughout  the  United  States,  many  of  them 
containing  half-tone  reproductions  of  the  Osborn  ape- 
men  busts,  are  positive  and  emphatic  in  teaching  this 
"scientific  truth."  Boards  of  Education  must  be 
shocked  by  Bateson 's  answer  to  his  own  question.  He 
says:  "Till  lately  most  of  us  would  have  said  'yes' 
without  misgiving.  The  appearance  of  contemporary 
variation  proves  to  be  an  illusion.  We  have  done  with 
the  notion  that  Darwin  came  to  favor,  that  large  differ- 


208  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ence  can  arise  by  accumulation  of  small  differences." 

Referring  to  Lotsy's  contempt  for  the  ideas  now 
flourishing  in  the  departments  of  zoology  and  botany, 
Bateson  contributes  another  shock  to  the  smug  assur- 
ance of  the  generalizers  of  evolutionary  theories. 
These  are  his  words:  " After  the  blind  complacency 
of  conventional  evolutionists  it  is  refreshing  to  meet  so 
frank  an  acknowledgment  of  the  hardness  of  the  prob- 
lem. Lotsy's  utterance  will  at  least  do  something  to 
expose  the  artificiality  of  systematic  zoology  and  bot- 
any. .  .  .  The  problem  still  stands  outside  the  realm 
of  scientific  investigation,  and  when  we  hear  that  the 
spontaneous  formation  of  formaldehyde  is  a  possible 
first  step  in  the  origin  of  life  we  think  of  Harry  Lauder 
in  the  character  of  a  Glasgow  school  boy  pulling  out 
his  treasures  from  his  pocket — 'That's  a  wassher  for 
makkin '  motor  cars ! '  " 

What's  the  Matter  with  Us? 

Summing  up  the  results  of  all  the  scientific  labors 
since  the  epoch-making  discoveries  of  Gregor  Mendel 
he  (Bateson)  dismisses  the  childish  conceptions  of  evo- 
lutionary dogma  in  a  few  carefully  considered  words : 
"Modern  research  lends  not  the  smallest  encourage- 
ment or  sanction  to  the  view  that  gradual  evolution  oc- 
curs by  the  transformation  of  masses  of  individuals, 
though  that  fancy  has  fixed  itself  on  popular  imagina- 
tion." And  Professor  Osborn,  Mr.  Wells,  et  al.,  keep 
it  going. 

We  are  living  in  an  age  of  intellectual  pride  which 
takes  as  little  heed  of  its  futile  vanities  as  of  its  para- 
doxical pursuit  of  gross  humiliations.  Few  of  us  stop 
to  consider  that  it  was  not  the  brain  of  the  average 
fallen  man  that  has  given  us  the  printing  press,  the 
cotton  gin,  the  smelter  and  the  anvil,  the  engine  and  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  209 

dynamo,  the  telegraph  and  the  telephone,  the  trans- 
Atlantic  liner  and  the  aeroplane,  the  microscope  and 
the  telescope.  We  employ  these  majestic  discoveries 
as  if  they  were  our  own ;  as  if  they  had  not  been  given 
to  us  by  a  comparatively  few  geniuses  standing  as  soli- 
tary luminaries  above  and  beyond  the  average  mass  of 
fallen  humanity.  The  poet  Longfellow  must  have  had 
some  such  thought  in  mind  when,  referring  to  the 
Mother  of  Christ,  he  penned  the  line,  "Our  tainted  na- 
ture's solitary  boast.' ' 

How  prone  we  are  to  boast  of  "our"  enlightenment. 
Have  "we"  not  conquered  the  elements;  have  "we' 
not  harnessed  the  lightning;  have  "we"  not  turned 
thundering  Niagara  into  funnels,  sweeping  her  mighty 
energies  through  turbines  into  factory  and  rail;  have 
"we"  not  analyzed  motion,  throwing  its  broken  parts 
upon  a  screen;  have  "we"  not  exposed  the  mechanism 
of  flight,  the  bursting  of  the  bud,  the  scavening  drive 
of  anti-bodies ;  have  "we"  not  caught  the  human  voice, 
compelling  it  to  dwell  in  a  disc  until  released  from  its 
prison  at  our  own  bidding;  have  "we"  not  tracked  to 
death  invisible  organisms  that  destroyed  millions  of 
our  fore-fathers ;  have  "we"  not  discovered  the  bacillus 
of  typhoid  (1879),  the  bacillus  of  tuberculosis  (1882), 
the  vibrio  of  Asiatic  cholera  (1883),  the  bacilli  of  lock- 
jaw and  diphtheria  (1884),  the  bacillus  of  bubonic 
plague  (1894) ;  have  "we"  not  developed  a  system  of 
antiseptic  and  aseptic  surgery,  even  though  there  are 
hundreds  of  millions  who  never  heard  of  Pasteur, 
Lister,  Koch;  have  "we"  not  taken  Jules  Verne  at  his 
word  by  voyaging  twenty  thousand  times  twenty  thou- 
sand leagues  under  the  sea  and  in  the  air ;  with  no  in- 
tervening wire  have  "we"  not  flashed  communications 
from  shore  to  shore;  have  "we"  not  compelled  the  soil 
to  yield  its  secrets  and  from  the  bowels  of  the  earth 
have  "we"  not  mobilized  the  forces  of  radium;  have 


210  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

"we"  not  smashed  the  atom;  have  "we"  not  made 
war  an  abyss  of  horror;  have  "we"  who  have  done 
these  things  not  proved  to  ourselves  how  wonderfully 
"we"  have  advanced  from  the  stage-coach  days  of  our 
grandfathers!  Alas,  poor  fools,  we  are  being  dragged 
behind  a  chariot.  When  it  stops  we  stop.  When  it 
speeds  on  we  speed  on.  The  reins  are  in  the  hands  of 
the  charioteer,  not  in  ours.  As  individuals  we  are  help- 
less in  progress  or  resistance.  As  individuals  we  re- 
ceive, accept  and  apply  without  thought  that  which  a 
few  pioneers  have  given  to  the  millions  who  do  the 
boasting. 

The  great  Bateson  has  made  the  thought  his  own  and 
the  majestic  quality  of  his  attitude  toward  truth,  re- 
gardless of  its  consequences,  is  revealed  in  a  sentence : 
"But  for  a  few  thousand  such  pioneers  as  Newton  and 
Pasteur,  inconceivably  rare,  the  rest  of  us  should  be 
in  the  Palaeolithic  era,  knowing  nothing  of  metals,  writ- 
ing, arithmetic,  weaving  nor  pottery."  To  all  the  sci- 
entists of  the  world,  but  to  none  of  the  pseudo-scientists 
whose  chief  glory  is  the  ostentation  of  learning  badly 
borrowed,  the  voice  of  Bateson  is  the  voice  of  a  seraph. 

Confusion  and  Darkness 

By  this  time  the  student  through  his  examination  of 
facts  and  contradictions  has  probably  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  evolution  has  been 
directed  into  lanes  of  confusion  and  darkness  by  rea- 
son of  its  vain  assumption  that  its  object  was  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  life  upon  this  planet.  To  attain 
progress  along  this  deliberately  selected  route  it  was 
forced  to  espouse  the  assumption  of  a  monophyletic 
evolution  of  the  whole  kingdom  of  organic  life  from  a 
single  cell  which  sprang  into  existence  through  some 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  211 

never  repeated  phenomenon  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion. 

Thus  at  the  very  beginning  of  its  monophyletic  as- 
sumptions it  was  obliged  with  its  eyes  wide  open  to 
push  a  problem  largely  philosophical  entirely  into  the 
laboratory  of  the  zoologist  and  palaeontologist.  With 
all  his  apparatus,  retorts,  test  tubes,  crucibles,  acids, 
alkalies  and  reagents  the  chemist  specializing  in  metal- 
lurgy would  be  wholly  at  a  loss  with  such  equipment  to 
deal  with  problems  of  bacteriology. 

The  botanist  would  find  the  instruments  of  the  civil 
engineer  of  no  avail  whatsoever  in  the  study  of  his  sub- 
ject. Philosophy,  the  very  highest  of  the  sciences, 
yields  to  the  solvents  of  zoology  and  palaeontology  no 
more  than  does  the  diamond  to  vinegar  and  water. 

Consequently  in  the  fabrication  of  results  essential 
from  the  very  start,  if  the  monophyletic  theory  was  to 
attract  attention,  it  became  necessary  to  formulate  hy- 
pothesis after  hypothesis  so  that  in  the  multiplicity  of 
assumptions  which  thus  sprang  into  existence  the  old 
ones  began  to  be  looked  upon  as  "established  facts' '  as 
the  new  ones  were  being  born.  In  this  manner  it  be- 
came the  habit  to  draw  conclusions  from  premises 
which  though  dignified  by  popular  recognition  had  ex- 
istence only  in  fancy. 

The  Standfuss  Butteeflies 

Even  De  Vries  (who  believed  he  had  found  new 
forms  of  the  Oenothera  which  appeared  to  behave  like 
real  species)  was  shown  the  folly  of  hasty  conclusions 
through  the  numerous  experiments  of  Standfuss  in 
breeding  butterflies.  These  experiments  shook  the  very 
foundation  of  the  theory  of  mutation  by  indicating  that 
mutation  has  little  significance,  if  any  at  all,  as  a  factor 
in  the  formation  of  species.     Standfuss  himself  was 


212  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

compelled  to  conclude  that  it  is  impossible  for  species 
to  be  formed  by  fluctuating  variations.  The  net  result 
of  his  extraordinary  experiments  took  the  shape  of  an 
opinion  that  the  only  really  important  variations  of 
species  are  those  modifications  caused  by  definite  ex- 
ternal influences,  which  modifications,  described  as 
"adaptive  variations/ '  are  transmitted  to  succeeding 
generations. 

On  this  subject  the  authoritative  work  of  Erich  Was- 
mann  with  respect  to  ants,  white  ants  and  their  guests 
or  parasites  is  of  tremendous  interest  in  that  it  pro- 
vides considerable  evidence  in  support  of  the  altogether 
reasonable  and  correspondingly  beautiful  theory  of 
polyphyletic  evolution  upheld  by  such  scientists  as 
Von  Wettstein  among  the  botanists,  and  Steinmann, 
Koken  and  Diener  among  the  palaeontologists. 

Polyphyletic  evolution,  instead  of  getting  back  to  an 
accident  resulting  in  a  single  stock  from  which  the 
myriads  of  modern  living  creatures  in  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms  have  descended,  begins  with  nu- 
merous stocks  expressly  created  by  God  and  controlled 
as  to  their  variations  by  the  operation  of  fixed  laws  re- 
vealing plan  and  purpose. 

Ants  and  Their  Guests 

The  parasites  or  guests  which  accommodate  them- 
selves to  the  life  of  ants  and  white  ants  (termites)  may 
have  developed  through  such  accommodation  into  new 
species,  genera  and  families.  Wasmann  asserts,  and 
he  is  not  speaking  as  a  theologian  but  as  a  scientist,  al- 
though in  addition  to  his  role  as  Europe's  foremost 
scientific  authority  on  insects  he  is  also  a  Catholic 
priest: 

"In  some  cases  (Thaumatoxena)  the  characteristic 
marks  have  been  so  completely  altered  by  accommoda- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  213 

tion  that  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  determine  to 
which  order  of  insects  this  strange  creature  belongs." 

Even  Wasmann,  predisposed  as  he  is  toward  the  phe- 
nomena of  accommodation  or  polyphyletic  evolution, 
is  not  without  his  own  tendency  to  draw  conclusions 
from  facts  that  are  by  no  means  conclusive.  He  says, 
for  instance  ("The  Hypothesis  and  Theory  of  Evolu- 
tion in  Natural  Science,"  p.  10) :  "There  are  hundreds 
of  kinds  of  ants,  which  we  know  through  their  having 
been  preserved  to  us  in  the  Tertiary  amber  of  the  Bal- 
tic and  Sicily.  Amongst  them  occur  several  genera 
which  still  exist,  but  scarcely  a  species  that  is  identical 
with  the  present  ones.  We  can  hardly  avoid  coming 
to  the  conclusion  that  our  ants  are  the  descendants  of 
these  fossil  varieties,  and  that  they  have  come  into 
being  by  way  of  natural  evolution  of  the  race,  and  not 
by  way  of  a  new  creation." 

It  would  appear  that  Wasmann  assumes  that  the  fos- 
sil ants  preserved  in  the  Tertiary  amber  of  the  Baltic 
and  Sicily  represent  the  parent  stock  of  the  modern 
ants,  though  it  is  altogether  possible,  according  to 
Wasmann 's  own  conclusions  in  other  matters,  that 
these  Tertiary  amber  ants,  even  though  they  comprise 
several  genera  which  still  exist,  did  not  comprise  all 
the  genera  then  existing. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  the  Tertiary  amber  of  the 
Baltic  and  Sicily  constitute  localized,  not  generalized, 
deposits  of  fossil  ants.  However,  we  may  here  have  a 
confusion  of  terms  with  respect  to  the  significance  at- 
tached to  Wasmann's  identification  of  "new  systematic 
varieties."  For  instance,  he  describes  the  conduct  of 
species  of  the  genus  Doryloxenus  (a  parasite)  which 
in  comparatively  recent  times  in  the  East  Indies  have 
ceased  to  live  with  the  ants,  becoming  guests  of  the 
Termites,  thus  being  changed  into  new  systematic 
varieties. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

Psychical  Activity 

Psychical  activity — Evolution  and  music. 

Nevertheless  the  phenomena  observed  by  Wasmann 
have  caused  him  to  define  evolution  as  comprising  "the 
chemical  and  physical  properties  of  the  organic  ele- 
ments and  the  original  mechanical  constellations  of 
living  atoms,  as  ordained  by  the  Creator  at  the  produc- 
tion of  the  primitive  type.  From  these  constellations 
arise  certain  definite  tendencies  of  evolution,  which 
may  be  further  influenced  by  the  reciprocal  action  of 
other  groups  of  atoms.  Natural  science  compels  us  to 
assume  certain  formal  principles,  which  are  not  make- 
shifts meddling  with  material  energy,  nor  do  they  dis- 
turb the  permanence  of  the  law  of  energy ;  they  simply 
direct  the  lower  energy,  quicken  to  life  the  atoms  hith- 
erto dead  by  absorbing  them  into  the  organism  and, 
in  short,  effect  THE  PURPOSE  of  the  vital  processes 
by  action  from  within.  This  postulate  is  eminently 
reasonable — I  personally  cannot  dispense  with  it,  and 
should  not  be  able  to  dispense  with  it,  even  if  theology 
did  not  exist. 

"We  cannot  dispense  with  the  assumption  that 
beasts  possess  some  psychical  activity,  but  how  far 
does  it  go?  Only  as  far  as  the  sphere  of  the  senses  ex- 
tends. On  the  intellectual  side  the  whole  psychical  ac- 
tivity of  beasts  is  limited  to  sense  perception,  to  the 
connection  of  such  perceptions  with  one  another,  to 
memory,  and  to  the  modification  of  earlier  forms  of 

214 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  215 

activity  in  accordance  with  sense  experience.  This 
psychical  activity  brings  into  action  the  inborn  ten- 
dencies and  directs  them  suitably  to  perform  the  vital 
function.  A  beast  possessing  these  faculties  is  plainly 
not  a  machine,  but  still  it  does  not  enjoy  intellectual 
life. 

"It  may  be  boldly  stated  that  much  confusion  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  expression  ' intellectual  life'  has 
been  caused  by  Biichner  and  Brehm  and  other  leaders 
of  popular  psychology.  All  our  sense  perceptions 
taken  collectively  are  regarded  as  constituting  intel- 
lectual life,  although  they  do  nothing  of  the  kind. 

"In  the  sense  in  which  the  expression  occurs  in  an- 
cient philosophy,  intellectual  life  is  only  that  form  of 
activity  which  we  describe  as  'higher,'  viz.,  the  exer- 
cise of  human  thought  and  human  will.  What  charac- 
terizes human  thought  is  the  fact  that  man  possesses 
the  power  to  form  concepts,  and  to  deduce  from  them 
general  conclusions,  and  to  raise  himself  by  the  aid  of 
his  reason  above  all  particular  phenomena.  On  this 
power  depend  all  the  art,  science,  and  religion  of  man- 
kind, which  are  not  found  among  beasts,  although  there 
are  some  trifling  resemblances  to  them,  which  have 
been  exaggerated  until  they  amount  to  real  equality. 
If  we  wish  to  be  consistent,  we  shall  require  to  have  a 
special  principle  underlying  this  intellectual  activity, 
which  distinguishes  man  above  all  the  rest  of  nature, 
and  this  principle  must  be  a  simple,  intellectual  being. 
This  soul  is  not,  however,  shut  up  in  the  human  body 
as  in  a  prison,  but  with  the  human  body  it  forms  one 
complete  being  and  substance;  hence,  in  addition  to 
the  higher  intellectual  faculties,  it  possesses  others  be- 
longing to  the  senses,  which  correspond  to  those  of 
beasts.  In  man  the  one  soul  is  capable  of  all  the  activi- 
ties which  a  beast  can  exercise,  but  in  addition  it  raises 
itself  to  the  higher  functions  of  the  will  and  intellect, 


216  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

and  thus  it  towers  above  the  sphere  of  animal  life.  It 
is  because  of  this  essential  superiority  of  man,  in  re- 
spect of  his  spiritual  activity,  to  what  is  animal  and 
material,  that  we  are  forced  to  assume  the  existence  of 
a  simple,  spiritual  soul  in  man,  a  soul  which  continues 
to  exist  after  death,  although  it  can  obviously  no  longer 
exercise  its  lower  functions,  when  once  it  is  separated 
from  the  body." 

But,  according  to  the  latest  theories  of  the  material- 
istic evolutionist,  as  announced  at  the  Second  Interna- 
tional Congress  of  Eugenics,  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History,  New  York  City,  September,  1921,  it 
is  not  the  soul  that  distinguishes  man  from  the  ape, 
but  rather  a  physical  difference  brought  about  by  the 
action  of  the  endocrine  glands,  the  secretions  of  which 
are  responsible  for  the  development  of  man  from  the 
ape.  Dr.  Charles  B.  Davenport,  director  of  the  Eu- 
genics Becord  Office,  says  that  all  crimes  and  all  moods 
are  produced  by  various  chemicals  called  hormones, 
which  are  manufactured  by  the  different  glands  and 
poured  into  the  blood  stream  which  carries  them  to  the 
different  organs,  including  the  brain,  where  they  pro- 
duce profound  bodily  and  mental  effects.  Professor  L. 
Bolk,  director  of  the  Department  of  Anatomy  in  the 
University  of  Amsterdam,  concurs  with  Dr.  Davenport 
and  carries  the  theory  further  by  declaring  that  the  en- 
docrine system  of  glands  not  only  controls  the  architec- 
ture of  the  body,  but  directs  the  growth  of  every  cell. 
He  suggests  that  millions  of  years  ago  a  change  began 
in  the  chemistry  of  one  of  the  varieties  of  anthropoid 
ape.  This  change  prolonged  its  period  of  growth  from 
birth  to  maturity  and  brought  about  many  other 
changes  in  its  structure.  Under  the  operation  and  in- 
fluence of  these  changes  the  ape  advanced  so  far  be- 
yond the  simian  stage  as  to  be  classified  as  human  and 
became  man. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  217 

According  to  this  theory  the  alterations  in  gland 
chemistry  which  transformed  the  ape  into  man  were 
brought  about  by  the  change  from  a  fruit  diet  to  a  meat 
diet.  All  the  other  apes  remained  vegetarians  except 
the  man-ape,  consequently  all  the  other  apes  remained 
apes  except  the  man-ape,  which,  by  eating  flesh  and 
drinking  blood,  became  human.  The  first  change  in 
man's  ape  ancestor,  according  to  Professor  Bolk,  was 
the  suppression  of  his  hairy  covering.  Then  came  the 
activity  of  the  suprarenal  body  to  which  the  white  man 
is  indebted  for  his  uncolored  skin.  The  massive  pro- 
truding jaw  bones  and  the  beetling  penthouse  brows 
of  the  ape  were  shaped  into  human  characters  by  the 
retarding  action  of  the  pituitary  body  on  bone  growth. 
This  action  is  also  responsible,  asserts  Professor  Bolk, 
for  the  small  and  delicate  hands  and  feet  of  man  as  com- 
pared with  the  huge  anthropoid  extremities.  The  thy- 
mus gland  is  credited  with  the  difference  between  the 
ape 's  skull  and  the  human  skull.  It  is  this  gland  which 
makes  man  superior  to  woman  and  which,  therefore, 
should  reconcile  woman  to  a  condition  of  marked  in- 
feriority from  which  she  may  never  hope  to  emerge 
unless  some  biological  catastrophe  occurs  to  muffle 
down  the  thymus  gland  of  the  male. 

"If  retardation  of  the  developmental  processes  be 
the  fundament  of  human  evolution,' '  says  Bolk  ("The 
Lancet,"  September  10,  1921)  "then  that  sex  has  at- 
tained the  highest  level  of  human  evolution  in  which 
this  retardation  is  most  pronounced  and  without  doubt 
this  is  the  case  with  the  masculine  sex."  Obviously 
there  is  no  biological  hope  for  woman,  and  she  may 
look  forward  to  a  gradual  return  to  the  chattel  status 
which  once  shackled  her  to  the  whims  of  man. 

Speaking  on  the  subject  of  the  change  of  diet  which 
caused  the  endocrine  glands  to  elaborate  a  species  of 
ape  into  mankind,  Professor  Bolk  says:    "I  consider 


218  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

this  to  be  the  adaptation  of  man  to  animal  foods.  All 
other  primates  are  herbivorous  or  frugivorous.  Only 
man  has  accustomed  himself  to  an  omnivorous  exist- 
ence. This  must  thoroughly  have  changed  his  metabol- 
ism. The  whole  endocrine  system  functions  as  a  unit. 
All  its  organs  are  physiologically  associated  with  each 
other,  and  the  effect  of  this  association  is  an  equilib- 
rium. Now,  in  each  organism  this  equilibrium  is  in 
harmony  with  the  chemical  structure  of  the  food,  of  the 
material  which  must  be  assimilated.  If  this  material 
is  exclusively  or  principally  vegetable,  the  endocrine 
system  must  function  in  a  somewhat  different  manner 
than  when  the  material  submitted  to  its  regulating 
power  is  of  animal  origin.  Therefore,  by  a  transition 
from  a  vegetable  to  an  omnivorous  diet  the  regulation 
of  the  metabolic  processes  must  be  modified.' ' 

This  is  not  a  new  idea,  as  we  shall  see,  when  shortly 
we  shall  return  for  a  moment  to  the  "Soulless  Thing/ ' 
the  "Chemic  Creed,' '  and  the  inspiration  of  Robert 
Blatchford.  Perhaps  it  may  explain  the  dog  ceme- 
teries and  cat  cemeteries  in  which  beloved  canines  and 
felines  are  buried  with  becoming  honors  and  solemn 
ceremonies  beneath  monuments  inscribed  in  terms  of 
love  and  sorrow.  Dogs  and  cats  have  been  fed  from 
man's  table  for  many  generations.  Some  of  them  eat 
the  cream  of  the  wheat,  lamb  chops,  remnants  of  salads, 
left-overs  of  beef  stew,  and  all  the  other  scraps  of  made 
dishes  that  remain  unconsumed  as  the  guests  retire 
from  the  dining  room  to  the  conservatory  for  their 
demi-tasse.  Dogs,  cats,  wolves,  hyenas,  lions,  tigers, 
vultures  and  other  carnivorous  creatures  have  been 
eating  meat  for  thousands  of  years,  and  doubtless  in 
time  will  more  fully  develop  the  distinctively  human 
factors  which  even  now,  due  to  a?  meat  diet,  must  be 
well  advanced,  though  unobtrusively  so,  on  their  way 
to  the  human  stage. 


*v  1                L          M| 

■9 

Courtesy  Zoological  Soci(  ty. 
Photograph   by  Edwin  ll.  Sanborn. 

Exceptional   view   of   chimpanzee's   "foot."     Note    sensitive 
spread  of  "big  toe"  and  "thumb."     The  beast  is  quite 
ready  to  listen  to  the  strains  of  "Home,  .Sweet   Borne' 
but   there   are   no   organs   at  the   zoo. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  219 

Possibly  it  is  the  recognition  of  this  affinity  between 
owner  and  pet  that  has  inspired  the  setting  apart  of 
canine  and  feline  graveyards.  The  whole  subject  is 
delightful,  suggesting,  as  it  does,  that  when  Old  Dog 
Tray  bays  the  moon  at  midnight  or  when  Tabby  Cat 
purrs  tunefully  at  the  fireside,  these  manifestations  of 
musical  tendencies  revert  to  a  diet  of  meat.  Thus  are 
the  secrets  of  existence  torn  one  by  one  from  the  dark- 
ness in  which  they  have  slumbered  these  millions  of 
years.  Not  to  the  seed  of  an  ape,  but  to  a  chunk  of  raw 
meaty  is  to  be  attributed  the  music  faculty  of  man's 
soul. 

Evolution  and  Music 

It  would  be  difficult  following  William  Bateson's  dic- 
tum, "An  organism  cannot  pass  on  to  its  offspring  a 
factor  which  it  did  not  itself  receive  in  fertilization," 
to  attribute  the  music  faculty  of  man's  soul  to  the  seed 
of  an  ape.  Music,  like  all  the  arts,  has  no  nationality. 
Even  the  Gemans  during  the  war  produced  Shake- 
speare in  Berlin  and  sang  Schumann's  Two  Grenadiers, 
despite  the  heart  in  it  which  was  French — the  Marseil- 
laise. Music  is  like  the  elements.  It  humbles  one's 
racial  animosities  and  numbs  one 's  religious  prejudices. 
As  there  is  no  Russian  sunlight,  no  American  shadow, 
no  British  hydrogen,  no  Italian  oxygen,  no  French 
poetry,  there  is  no  German  music.  Music  belongs  to 
all  and,  like  the  elements,  defies  monopoly.  The  Jew 
Mendelssohn  had  scarcely  stolen  the  Spring  Song  from 
the  void  when  the  Gentiles  were  whistling  its  melody 
on  the  streets.  The  evolutionist  who  says  there  are 
no  miracles  is  confounded  by  the  miracle  of  music  and 
made  dumb  by  speculation  concerning  its  origin. 

How  comes  it  that  melody  pours  in  from  nothingness 
before  it  finds  its  way  on  paper  to  the  strings  and 
voices  that  pass  it  on?    Where  did  that  One  Furtive 


220  GOD— OB  GORILLA 

Tear  reside  before  it  burst  upon  the  soul  of  Donezetti? 
The  naturalist  tells  us  that  the  fragrance  of  the  rose 
creeps  into  the  bud  with  the  esters  and  aldehydes  elab- 
orated in  the  humus  with  which  the  soil  is  mixed,  and 
that  the  ethereal  flavor  of  the  peach  is  merely  frag- 
rance captured.  The  odor  of  blossoms  rides  upon  the 
wind,  free  as  the  wind  itself,  and  though  we  may  de- 
scribe it  with  something  like  a  chemical  symbol,  and 
though  our  naturalists  may  draw  distinctions  between 
the  physiological  and  ethereal,  their  explanations  as 
to  the  origin  of  odor  are  as  vague  as  their  conclusions 
concerning  the  origin  of  species.  They  admit  that 
melody  floats  in  from  nowhere,  yet  is  something;  that 
it  is  not  a  phantom,  though  it  springs  from  nothingness 
into  being.  Less  tangible,  more  impalpable  than  the 
interstellar  spaces,  music  is  none  the  less  so  real  a 
thing  that  it  is  talked  about,  extolled,  pondered  over. 
So  baffling,  so  awesome,  so  wonderful  is  the  theme  that 
the  scholar  has  as  much  difficulty  in  expressing  the  con- 
flict of  emotions  which  it  provokes  as  have  little  chil- 
dren in  giving  it  a  definition. 

Children  instinctively  associate  music  with  angels, 
and  millions  of  older  folk  find  themselves  utterly  help- 
less to  exclude  God  from  their  consciousness  when  a 
melting  song  lays  its  touch  upon  the  soul.  True  enough 
there  may  be  no  manifestation  of  the  miraculous  when 
the  invisible  becomes  visible,  as  the  breath  of  an  ox  on 
a  winter  day,  but  no  explanation  avails  to  account  for 
the  golden  threads  of  melody  spun  from  the  void  where 
sound  is  never  heard  and  matter  has  no  existence. 
Even  to  the  materialist  melody  becomes  a  taper  glow- 
ing with  miraculous  fire,  thrusting  doubt  into  the  shad- 
ows and  sweeping  the  barren  wastes  of  objectiveless 
existence  with  flashes  of  the  Infinite.  We  may  say  that 
melody  is  wine,  that  the  chalices  pouring  it  are  form- 
less, that  the  wine  itself  is  less  than  air,  less  than  ether, 


GOD— OB  GORILLA  221 

less  than  thought,  but  we  are  at  a  loss  to  plot  the  abode 
of  these  immaterial  fiickerings  of  immortality  before 
they  visit  earth. 

Science  can  be  ransacked  and  all  the  arts  of  deduc- 
tion exhausted  for  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
relentless  and  resistless  phenomenon  embodied  in  song. 
When  welters  of  symphonic  waves  submerge  and  all 
but  drown  one  in  pain  too  sweet  to  be  described  as  tor- 
ment, is  there  not  awakened  in  the  soul  a  new  hunger, 
a  new  yearning  for  that  which  has  stirred  one's  whole 
being  to  the  core?  Out  of  the  abundance  and  the  satia- 
tion does  there  not  come  the  consciousness  that  man 
has  an  objective  far  beyond  the  limits  marked  by  the 
stirring  of  his  emotions?  Does  he  not  begin  to  see, 
to  know,  without  the  ability  to  demonstrate  his  knowl- 
edge, that  he  is  indeed  immortal;  that  nothing  can  or 
ever  will  satisfy  the  infinite  hunger  of  his  faculties  ex- 
cept the  Infinite!  Is  not  music  one  of  the  most  inno- 
cent of  all  man's  earthly  pleasures,  and  yet  the  most 
compelling?  It  is  not  the  one  passion  that  never  de- 
grades, the  one  intake  that  never  fills,  the  one  output 
that  never  exhausts  %  Witness  the  sorrow  of  the  world 
when  Caruso's  golden  voice  was  hushed  in  death. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
The  Mason-Bee 

The  Mason-bee — Not  a  gleam  of  intelligence — The  plan! 

The  clash  between  monophyletic  evolution  on  the 
one  hand,  with  its  rejection  of  God,  and  polyphyletic 
variation  on  the  other  with  its  fixed  laws,  plan  and  pur- 
pose, merely  serves  to  emphasize  the  vagueness  and 
uncertainty  of  the  materialist's  extravagant  specula- 
tions and  to  show  the  loss  of  an  objective  worthy  of 
the  pursuit  of  rational  man. 

Polyphyletic  variation  demonstrates  this  plan,  pur- 
sues this  purpose,  obeys  laws  imposed  by  a  Law-Giver 
and  bridges  every  gap  on  the  brink  of  which  monophy- 
letic evolution  is  compelled  to  pause  while  it  horse- 
whips its  fancy  to  the  formulation  of  imaginary  miss- 
ing links  without  which  it  cannot  go  on. 

The  materialist  encounters  in  the  bee  an  insurmount- 
able obstacle  which  would  be  no  obstacle  at  all  if  the 
Creator  were  not  rejected. 

This  obstacle,  gripping  in  its  fascination,  discloses 
the  confusion  growing  out  of  the  blind  instinct  of  ani- 
mals and  the  reasoning  intelligence  of  man. 

Science  itself  proves  that  blind  instinct  always  fol- 
lows a  fixed  law.  Rational  intelligence  is  free  to  choose. 
Upon  this  choice  free  will,  distinguishing  man  from 
brute,  stands  like  a  rock  which  the  materialist  cannot 
batter  down. 

The  materialist  grants  the  bee  a  history  of  millions 
of  years  on  this  planet  for  the  reason  that  it  is  com- 

222 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  223 

paratively  low  in  the  line  of  descent  from  the  "  prim- 
ordial single  cell."  Monophyletic  evolution  demands 
acceptance  of  the  theory  that  the  bee  was  evolved  from 
a  lower  organism  which  neither  made  honey  nor  built 
a  hive,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  one  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  the  bee  is  that  it  is  the  only 
creature  in  nature  that  does  both,  though  no  explana- 
tion of  its  instinct  as  a  honey  gatherer  and  hive  build- 
er has  ever  been  offered.  The  old  stand-by  of  the  evo- 
lutionist " acquired  by  habit"  completely  fails.  Even 
Darwin  surrenders  unconditionally  on  this  point.  He 
actually  asserts  ("The  Origin  of  Species,"  Appleton, 
1920,  vol.  1,  p.  321) :  "It  can  be  clearly  shown  that  the 
most  wonderful  instincts  with  which  we  are  acquainted, 
namely  those  of  the  hive  bee,  could  not  possibly  have 
been  acquired  by  habit." 

Most  startling  are  the  scientific  proofs  that  by  in- 
stinct the  bee  builds  its  hive,  and  by  instinct  it  extracts 
nectar  from  the  flowers.  In  none  of  the  problems  put 
up  to  the  bee  by  human  interference  is  it  capable  of 
exercising  a  reasoning  intelligence  to  protect  itself 
from  the  follies  it  is  forced  to  commit  when  the  course 
of  its  "most  wonderful"  but  wholly  blind  instinct  is 
arbitrarily  altered  by  man. 

The  French  entomologist,  J.  Henri  Fabre,  concludes 
from  his  experiments  that  this  blind  instinct  of  the  bee 
is  absolutely  unprogressive,  absolutely  limited  in  its 
range,  absolutely  fixed  and  unchanging,  as  is  the  law  of 
gravitation. 

Fabre  made  a  hole  in  the  cell  of  the  Mason-bee  while 
she  was  building  the  cell.  She  stopped  to  repair  the 
hole.  He  made  many  holes.  As  long  as  her  instinct 
directed  her  building  operations  she  plugged  them  all. 
With  the  completion  of  the  cell  her  instinct  directed 
her  to  gather  nectar  with  which  to  provision  it.  Fabre 
made  another  hole  in  the  bottom  of  the  cell.    The  bee 


224  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

was  now  engaged  in  provisioning,  not  in  building.  She 
observed  the  hole,  but  went  on  with  her  provisioning, 
letting  the  honey  ooze  through. 

Once  the  provisioning  begins  the  cell  is  finished  for 
good  and  all  and,  come  what  may,  the  bee  will  not  touch 
it  again.  To  plug  the  hole  would  imply  a  change  of 
occupation,  of  which  the  bee  is  incapable.  It  is  the 
honey's  turn,  and  not  the  mortar's. 

"A  moment  comes,"  says  Fabre  ("The  Mason- 
Bees,"  p.  177),  "when  the  cell  must  be  raised  a  story 
higher.  Will  the  bee,  once  more  a  mason,  mixing  fresh 
cement,  now  attend  to  the  leakage  at  the  bottom?  No 
more  than  before." 

What  occupies  her  now  is  the  new  floor  which  she 
repairs  at  once  if  it  sustains  a  damage;  but  the  cell 
underneath  is  too  old  a  part  of  the  business ;  it  is  an- 
cient history.    The  bee  will  not  put  a  further  touch  to  it. 

Fabre  stuck  a  bit  of  straw  an  inch  long  into  the  cell, 
so  that  the  straw  stood  out  above  the  rim.  By  great 
effort  the  bee  extracted  it.  He  repeated  his  perform- 
ance and  the  bee  repeated  hers. 

Finally,  with  the  completion  of  the  cell,  the  egg-lay- 
ing period  began.  The  egg  was  laid.  Again  the  straw 
was  put  into  the  cell  with  the  egg  to  interfere  with  the 
growth  of  the  baby  bee.  Before  the  laying  of  the  egg 
the  bee  persisted  in  removing  all  straws,  but  after  the 
egg  was  laid  she  followed  blindly  the  instinct  of  sealing 
up  the  cell,  which  she  proceeded  to  do  with  the  straw 
sticking  up  over  the  top  nearly  a  centimeter  (.39  inch). 

She  then  flew  forth  for  more  building  material  with 
which  to  strengthen  the  cover  of  the  cell. 

Eight  cells  were  trifled  with  in  this  fashion.  The  bee 
sealed  them  all  with  the  utmost  care.  She  was  incap- 
able of  doing,  after  the  laying  of  the  egg,  what  her  in- 
instinct  compelled  her  to  do  before  that  period  of  her 
activities  had  arrived. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  225 

Fabre  sees  in  all  this  nothing  but  an  invincible  per- 
sistence in  the  act,  once  begun.  Exquisite  attention 
was  paid  to  closing  up  the  cell  which  was  henceforth 
useless.  No  matter  that  the  larva  would  perish;  the 
moment  had  come  after  the  laying  of  the  egg  to  wall 
up  the  door,  and  the  door  was  walled  up. 

Again  Fabre  drained  away  the  honey,  from  some 
cells  in  part,  from  others  wholly.  When  the  time  came 
for  the  bee  to  lay  her  eggs  she  laid  them,  whether  there 
was  honey  in  the  cell  or  not.  She  was  following  blind 
instinct.  She  could  not  judge  of  the  quantity  of  honey 
by  the  elevation  of  the  surface.  Had  she  the  least 
glimmer  of  reason  she  would  not  lay  her  egg  in  a  cell 
drained  of  the  nourishment  without  which  the  baby  bee 
would  starve.  Her  instinct  was  as  true  as  the  move- 
ment of  the  planets  until  subjected  to  the  wiles  of  the 
experimenter,  after  which  she  became  a  dunce. 

Not  a  Gleam  of  Intelligence 

The  Mason-bee,  when  hatched  and  nourished  by  the 
honey  provided  in  its  cradle,  will  follow  its  blind  in- 
stinct, pierce  the  dome  of  its  cell  and  emerge.  Fabre 
put  a  bit  of  thin  brown  paper-covering  a  little  distance 
over  the  dome.  The  bee's  instinct  directed  it  to  pierce 
the  dome.  Having  done  that,  it  was  through.  The  bit 
of  paper  was  more  easily  pierced,  but  the  bee  had  no 
instinct  for  piercing  paper  in  order  to  get  out  into  the 
world,  so  it  proceeded  to  perish  for  lack  of  the  smallest 
gleam  of  intelligence. 

Much  has  been  written  about  the  "singular  intelli- 
gence" of  the  bee.  It  has  been  compared  to  human  rea- 
son just  as  the  intelligence  of  dogs,  seals,  and  other 
animals  has  been  compared  to  human  reason,  as  if  upon 
the  brains  of  some  of  them,  learning  their  tricks,  the 
human  intelligence  of  the  teacher  had  not  been  imposed. 


226  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  very  science  which  compares  the  blind  instinct 
of  the  bee  to  the  germ  of  human  reason  invites  a  re- 
turn of  the  old-fashioned  notion  of  a  reasoning  human 
soul  derived  from  no  brute,  but  made  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God. 

The  bee  builds  the  hive  with  wonderful  art,  rigidly 
limited  to  the  building  of  a  hive.  Its  hive  displays  real 
architectural  skill — the  minimum  of  material  with  the 
maximum  of  capacity.  To  plan  such  a  structure  rea- 
soning man  would  have  to  work  out  a  difficult  mathe- 
matical problem.  He  would  have  to  have  a  plan.  The 
bee  never  makes  a  plan.  It  merely  builds.  But  with- 
out a  plan  it  would  waste  much  building  material  and 
build  in  vain. 

In  the  building  of  the  Woolworth  Tower  rational  man 
had  a  plan  and  a  fixed  purpose.  With  all  his  reason, 
if  he  had  attempted  the  structure  without  a  plan  he 
would  have  spoiled  much  material  and  wasted  great 
effort.  Man  forms  his  own  plan.  Who  forms  the  plan 
of  the  bee  ? 

The  materialist  assures  us  that  instinct  is  ''acquired 
habit' '  and  the  instruments  with  which  it  works  have 
been  evolved  by  pure  chance,  wherefore  he  declares 
that  he  has  established  a  foundation  for  scientific  athe- 
ism. Yet  even  the  untrained  observer  detects  the 
strained  quality  of  these  theories  of  chance  evolution. 
He  notes  that  acquired  habits  vary,  but  that  instinct 
never  varies.  From  the  beginning  the  bee  bequeaths 
its  instinct  to  its  offspring.  The  bee  is  a  skilled  builder 
from  the  start.  Man  cannot  bequeath  his  architectural 
skill  in  such  fashion  to  his  son.  By  slow  process  the 
builder  must  learn  his  trade  and  the  artist  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  art.    The  bee  does  all  instantaneously. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  227 

The  Plan! 

Where  does  the  bee  get  its  plan?  Not  from  itself, 
for  it  hasn't  a  gleam  of  intelligence.  If  it  had  such 
intelligence,  capable  of  making  a  plan  of  its  hive,  it 
could  make  other  plans  as  well.  If  it  could  plan  at  all 
it  could  plan  to  save  its  honey  from  the  robbers  who 
steal  it  every  season.  But  it  neither  plans,  nor  does  it 
learn  the  art  of  building.  It  builds  by  instinct  on  a 
plan  already  provided.  Unlike  man,  it  can  do  no  good 
or  evil  of  its  own  free  choice. 

Who,  then,  planned  the  bee's  hive  and  implanted 
the  building  instinct!  Science  does  not  deny  that  every 
bee  since  the  first  has  carried  out  this  plan,  just  as  the 
builders  carried  out  the  architect's  plan  for  the  Wool- 
worth  Tower.  But  whence  came  the  bee  in  the  first 
place?  Was  it  hatched  from  a  bee  egg,  the  germ  of 
another  bee,  according  to  the  law  of  biogenesis — "ev- 
ery living  organism  from  a  germ  of  its  kind" — never 
an  oak  from  an  apple  seed  or  a  iig  tree  from  an  acorn? 

If  the  specific  law  is  that  each  species  comes  from 
the  germ  of  its  own  species,  every  bee  since  the  first 
has  been  hatched  from  the  egg  of  a  pre-existing  bee. 
Whence  came  the  first  pre-existing  bee?  Like  begets 
like.  We  get  no  bee,  except  from  the  egg  of  another 
bee.  But  perhaps  the  bee  came  millions  of  years  ago 
from  the  egg  of  another  insect.  This  is  skulking  away 
from  the  difficulty,  which  becomes  at  once  more  per- 
plexing than  before.  Science  admits  that  the  bee 
couldn't  have  come  from  the  crossing  of  two  insects  of 
different  species.  Hybrid  forms  among  animals  are 
sterile.  The  bee  is  fertile  and  certainly  no  hybrid.  It 
possesses  the  twofold  faculty  of  honey-making  and 
hive-building.  Even  though  we  follow  Darwin's  for- 
mula, these  faculties  could  never  have  been  separate. 
Darwin's  infinitesimal  steps  in  gigantic  periods  of  time 


228  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

must  pause  on  the  spot.  The  purpose  of  the  hive  is  to 
store  honey  and  hatch  more  bees.  If  the  first  bee  is- 
sued from  the  mating  of  insects  that  neither  collected 
nectar  nor  built  hives,  where  was  the  cell  to  hatch  the 
egg,  and  where  was  the  nectar  to  feed  the  baby  bee? 
The  bee  is  never  hatched,  save  in  a  cell,  and  cannot 
grow  unless  fed  with  honey.  Whence  came  the  first 
cell  and  the  first  honey  without  a  pre-existing  bee  capa- 
ble of  building  the  former  and  gathering  the  latter? 
Even  in  the  case  of  certain  varieties  of  the  wild  bee  the 
mother  bee  is  the  primary  cause  of  the  formation  of 
the  cell  around  the  young  bee,  similar  to  the  cocoon  of 
the  silkworm. 

The  chance  evolutionist  suggests  a  low  form  of  pre- 
existing honey-gatherers  and  a  low  form  of  pre-exist- 
ing cell-makers  as  the  ancestors  of  the  bee.  But  if 
this  be  true,  the  first  product  of  the  chance  evolution 
must  have  been  equipped  with  an  apparatus  for  gath- 
ering honey  and  a  plan  for  making  cells.  The  bee 
couldn't  have  acquired  this  apparatus  SLOWLY.  It 
couldn't  have  developed  its  tools  and  its  skill  SLOWLY 
for  the  reason  that  its  offspring  could  have  survived 
no  such  delay. 

How  could  the  new-born  infant  of  a  mother  who  had 
not  yet  developed  mammary  glands  survive  the  delay 
of  ages  until  chance  evolution  might  succeed  in  devel- 
oping mammals  capable  of  suckling  their  young!  How 
were  the  offspring  of  the  ancestors  of  man  nourished 
at  the  breast  before  the  development  of  the  breast? 
Darwin  himself  says  ("The  Origin  of  Species,"  vol.  I, 
chap,  vii) :  "The  mammary  glands  are  common  to 
the  whole  class  of  mammals  and  ARE  INDISPENS- 
ABLE for  their  existence." 

But  Darwin  himself  also  says  that  the  mammals 
have  descended  from  the  marsupials,  and  instantly  we 
have  a  new  set  of  complications  in  which  the  opossum, 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  229 

the  kangaroo  and  the  turkey  become  the  most  bewil- 
dering riddles  of  the  chance  evolutionists  scheme. 
Since  Darwin's  time  no  evolutionist  has  attempted  to 
explain  how,  by  chance  evolution,  the  offspring  could 
have  survived  the  millions  of  years  which  are  said  to 
separate  the  marsupial  from  the  mammal  while  the 
latter  was  evolving  from  the  former,  or,  in  other  words, 
until  the  mammary  glands  of  the  mother  could  be  de- 
veloped beyond  the  pouch  stage. 

All  theories  of  chance  evolution  repudiate  plan,  pur- 
pose and  definite  intention,  yet  the  sting  of  the  bee  is 
certainly  an  organ  of  definite  intention.  The  ova-posi- 
tor  of  the  grasshopper,  through  which  its  eggs  are 
planted  deeply  in  bark  or  earth,  is  certainly  another 
organ  of  definite  intention.  The  cuttlefish  possesses 
two  organs  of  definite  intention.  With  one  it  clouds 
the  water  when  in  danger,  thus  enabling  it  to  escape ; 
the  other  consists  of  a  system  of  snaps,  like  those  on 
gloves,  with  which  it  buckles  on  its  outer  skin  at  the 
throat. 

On  the  theory  that  special  organs,  designed  for  a 
particular  use,  were  developed  ever  so  slowly  before 
the  time  came  when  they  might  be  used,  it  would  be  nec- 
essary for  birds,  evolving  from  reptiles,  to  acquire 
feathers  gradually  through  thousands  and  thousands 
of  generations  before  such  feathers  could  be  used  for 
flight,  and,  of  course,  during  all  this  period  of  develop- 
ment there  would  have  had  to  be  another  and  equally 
marvelous  co-ordination  of  development  in  the  direc- 
tion of  flying  bones  and  flying  muscles,  and  a  still  more 
marvelous  co-ordination,  all  by  chance,  whereby  the 
center  of  gravity  of  the  bird  would  fall  within  the  limits 
of  flight. 

Had  there  been  no  definite  intention,  no  purpose,  no 
plan  in  such  a  system  of  evolution,  we  are  at  once  con- 
fronted by  such  a  marvelous  series  of  complex  oo-ordin- 


230  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ations,  each  species  presenting  an  entirely  different 
set  of  wonders,  that  we  are  compelled  to  look  upon 
chance  in  a  spirit  of  awe  and  admiration  similar  to,  if 
not  identical  with,  the  spirit  that  inspires  the  worship 
of  the  creature  for  the  Creator. 

If  indeed  it  be  not  reasonable  to  do  violence  to  rea- 
son, is  it  unreasonable  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  rea- 
son by  admitting  that  a  Creator  overcame  the  inscrut- 
able difficulties  involved  in  all  theories  of  chance  evolu- 
tion by  such  acts,  for  instance,  as  the  creation  of 
Mother  Eve,  with  breasts  fully  formed  and  capable 
from  the  very  beginning  of  sustaining  her  offspring, 
our  ancestors?  Polyphyletic  evolution,  seeking  to  ac- 
count for  the  origin  of  the  bee  and  the  human  breast, 
throws  itself  upon  God. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Evolution  in  a  Muddle 

Man  alone  makes  progress. 

As  in  other  animals,  with  instincts  as  astonishing  as 
are  those  of  the  bee,  sure,  swift  and  certain  within  their 
own  narrow  sphere,  but  blind  and  impotent  outside  of 
that  sphere,  these  blind  instincts,  as  far  as  science  can 
now  see,  merely  serve  to  keep  the  species  in  the  straight 
and  narrow  grooves  assigned  to  them  in  nature.  Ac- 
cording to  Lyell,  from  65  to  80  per  cent,  of  the  species 
of  shellfish  found  in  the  pliocene  beds  for  which  an  age 
of  millions  of  years  is  demanded,  are  identical  with 
those  now  existing.  Such  stumbling  blocks  must  be 
reckoned  with  in  the  search  for  " certainty.' '  They  at 
least  serve  to  disclose  the  incalculable  vastness  of  the 
reaches  which  the  finite  intelligence  of  man  presumes 
with  magnificent  daring  to  explore. 

Evolutionary  theories,  from  the  very  beginning,  have 
never  ceased  to  caution  each  other  against  the  vanities 
of  assurance.  They  are  forever  engaged  in  the  task 
of  rearranging  the  fragments,  of  reassigning  the  fos- 
sils and  of  reclassifying  the  data  from  which  they  draw 
their  inferences  and  counter  inferences.  They  know  no 
certainty.  The  opossum,  kangaroo  and  turkey  make 
their  bewilderment  all  the  more  bewildering.  These 
three  creatures,  like  so  manv  other  four-footed  and 
two-footed  animals,  are  as  conservative  as  the  ape. 
One  would  think  they  tvere  always  opposed  to  progress 
as  they  are  opposed  to  progress  now.    One  would  think 

231 


232  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

that  through  them  nature  halts  the  advance  of  evolu- 
tion, as  in  the  case  of  the  bat,  the  whale,  the  ant  and 
scores  of  other  creatures,  so  that  the  more  deeply  the 
truth-seeker  probes,  the  more  depth  he  may  find  be- 
neath him. 

Take  the  opossum,  for  instance.  The  first  relics  of 
this  curious  creature  were  found  in  Paris,  at  Montmar- 
tre.  Its  living  representatives,  so  well  known  in  Amer- 
ica, are  really  not  known  at  all,  for  as  far  as  the  gen- 
eral public  is  concerned  they  constitute  a  zoological 
island  which  has  never  been  explored.  The  tail  of  the 
opossum  is  covered  with  scales  like  the  tail  of  a  rat, 
but,  unlike  the  tail  of  a  rat,  it  is  prehensile,  resembling 
the  tail  of  the  American  monkey.  Not  every  American 
monkey  has  a  prehensile  tail,  but  no  monkey  which  is 
not  American  has  a  prehensile  tail.  The  prehensile 
tail  is  capable  of  curling  its  own  end  so  firmly  round 
the  branch  of  a  tree  that  the  creature's  body  can  be 
safely  suspended  by  it  as  if  by  a  fifth  and  powerful 
hand.  The  female  is  provided  with  a  pouch  in  which 
the  young,  after  birth,  are  nourished.  All  the  toes  are 
equipped  with  claws,  except  the  inner  toe  of  the  hind 
foot,  which  is  not  only  clawless,  but  which  acts  like  a 
thumb.  In  the  front  of  the  jaws  are  ten  small  teeth 
above  and  eight  small  teeth  below,  with  seven  grinders 
on  each  side  at  the  rear,  including  one  more  wisdom 
tooth  than  is  possessed  by  any  ape,  not  excepting  the 
American  ape. 

It  is  as  skilful  in  climbing  trees  as  the  spider-mon- 
key. Its  habit  of  carrying  its  young  in  a  pouch  and 
the  hand-like  formation  of  its  hind  paw  are  but  two  of 
the  novelties  which,  with  eloquent  significance,  inspire 
the  evolutionist  to  avoid  all  discussion  of  the  animal. 

St.  George  Mivart,  F.R.S.,  who  greatly  distressed 
Charles  Darwin,  observes  (" Types  of  Animal  Life," 
Boston,  1893,  p.  39) :    "Little  did  the  first  observer  of 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  233 

the  opossum  imagine  that  the  difference  between  a  bat 
and  a  mouse  or  the  difference  between  a  porpoise  and 
a  sheep  was  as  nothing  compared  with  the  difference 
between  the  opossum  and  any  other  beast  known  in 
Europe  or  America."  Of  course  evolution  demands 
that  other  creatures  more  or  less  allied  to  the  opossum 
must  be  elsewhere  discovered.  What  about  the  females 
of  the  Australian  marsupials  which,  like  the  American 
opossum,  are  provided  with  the  pouch,  and  which  are 
all  distinguished  by  the  possession  of  two  bones,  called 
the  "marsupial  bones"  extending  forward  in  the  flesh 
of  the  belly  from  the  front  margin  of  the  pelvis  to  which 
the  hind  legs  are  articulated?  The  Tasmanian  wolf  is 
the  one  exception  to  this.  It  possesses  this  marsupial 
structure  not  in  the  condition  of  bone  but  as  two  pieces 
of  cartilage.  The  possession  of  these  marsupial  bones 
or  cartilages,  with  other  curious  characters,  separates 
the  creatures  possessing  them  by  a  tremendous  abyss 
from  all  other  animals.  Their  reproductive  functions 
cause  them  (the  Australian  beasts  and  the  opossum  of 
America)  to  be  classed  as  marsupials  to  distinguish 
them  from  the  beasts  on  the  other  side  of  the  abyss 
classified  as  placentals. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  all  existing 
species  are  the  descendants  of  common  ancestors  from 
the  structure  of  which  they  diverge  in  various  degrees. 
Here  are  two  parallel  series  of  beasts.  Were  they  all 
at  first  marsupials  f  Are  the  placentals,  rodents,  cats, 
weasels,  wolves,  moles,  deer,  antelopes,  sloths,  etc.,  the 
modified  offspring  and  descendants  of  the  marsupials, 
kangaroos,  opossums,  etc? 

If  this  be  so,  it  becomes  absolutely  necessary  that  a 
number  of  very  similar  structures  must  be  affirmed  to 
have  arisen  independently,  agreeing  to  branch  off  in 
one  direction  as  placentals  while  holding  fast  in  the 


234  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

other  direction  to  their  antecedent  and  wholly  sepa- 
rate marsupial  forms. 

Or  did  all  the  placentals  descend  from  some  one  mar- 
supial species,  or  did  all  marsupials  descend  from  some 
one  non-marsupial  form?  Accepting  the  latter  theory, 
it  again  becomes  necessary  to  affirm  that  a  number  of 
very  similar  structures  must  have  arisen  independent- 
ly. The  opossum  thus  suggests  the  independent  origin 
of  similar  structures  upon  a  continent  which  has  noth- 
ing in  common  with  Australia,  so  singularly  celebrated 
by  its  curious  marsupial  forms. 

The  second  and  third  toes  of  the  kangaroo  are  bound 
together,  but  the  toes  of  the  American  opossum  are  as 
well  developed  as  the  toes  of  any  beast.  Either  the 
American  opossum  is  specially  connected  by  blood  re- 
lationship to  the  Australian  kangaroo  or  it  is  not.  If 
they  are  related  their  resemblances  are  not  due  to 
descent  from  a  common  ancestor  but  consist  of  similar 
characters  which  must  have  arisen  independently.  If 
they  are  not  related  then  not  only  the  similar  but  also 
extremely  exceptional  characters  of  the  foot  must  have 
arisen  independently. 

Of  course  beasts  differ  as  to  the  number  of  their 
toes.  The  horse,  ass  and  zebra  alone  have  a  single  toe 
for  each  foot.  Sheep,  oxen  and  deer  have  two  toes  on 
each  foot.  The  chaeropus,  which  looks  like  a  miniature 
kangaroo,  less  than  twelve  inches  in  length  from  the 
tip  of  the  nose  to  the  root  of  the  tail,  has  six  toes.  Its 
fore-limbs  are  supported  on  two  toes  each,  although 
its  hind-limbs  rest  upon  one  toe  only.  Then  there  is 
the  myrmecobius  discovered  by  Lieut.  Dale  in  western 
Australia.  In  flight  it  looks  very  like  a  squirrel.  The 
female  has  no  pouch.  The  most  remarkable  character 
of  this  animal  is  its  possession  of  a  great  number  of 
grinding  or  molar  teeth,  sixteen  in  the  upper  jaw  and 
eighteen  in  the  lower  jaw.    Is  it  a  "  survival"  of  a  very 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  235 

ancient  form?  The  American  opossum  must  be  very- 
ancient  since  it  can  prove  its  descent  from  the  time 
when  its  relatives  left  their  remains  in  the  rocks  be- 
neath what  is  now  Paris,  dating  from  what  is  supposed 
to  have  been  the  Tertiary  period.  This  means,  of 
course,  that  the  opossum  isn't  so  very  old  after  all, 
because  the  little  myrmecobius  had  relatives  in  Eng- 
land whose  relics  have  been  found  in  the  Stonesfield 
oolitic  rocks,  said  to  be  older  than  the  Paris  Tertiary 
rocks  by  perhaps  millions  of  years. 

So  the  puzzle  begins  to  muddle  frightfully.  Aus- 
tralia appears  to  be  a  surviving  oolitic  land  still  dis- 
playing a  living  representative  of  forms  which  passed 
away  so  many  ages  ago  that  they  leave  but  rare  and 
scattered  relics  walled  up  in  the  rock-ribbed  hills.  Fur- 
thermore we  find  not  the  evolution  from  small  forms 
to  larger  forms,  as  in  the  classical  exhibit  of  the  horse, 
and  as  is  demanded  as  a  rule  of  evolution,  but  monster 
forms  devoluting  to  comparatively  insignificant  sizes. 
We  know  that  in  Australia  there  lived  beasts  possess- 
ing the  essential  structural  characteristics  of  the  kan- 
garoo, yet  of  the  bulk  of  the  rhinoceros,  just  as  in  the 
geologically  recent  deposits  in  Soutji  America  are 
found  the  bones  of  tremendous  beasts,  first  cousins  to 
the  sloths  and  armadilloes,  which  exist  there  still. 
This  we  know:  the  American  opossum  is  a  form  of 
marsupial  life  now  found  only  in  America.  It  exists 
in  lonely  isolation  in  the  midst  of  a  vast  continent 
abounding  in  non-marsupial  forms  of  mammalian  life. 
All  other  marsupials  live  together  in  one  mass  in  all 
but  complete  isolation  from  non-marsupial  beasts,  yet 
the  American  opossum  singularly  upsets  all  the  infer- 
ences that  the  evolutionist  who  demands  progress 
would  draw,  if  he  could,  from  these  baffling  facts  of 
natural  history. 

Whence  came  the  opossum?    How  did  it  get  to  North 


236  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

America?  Why  didn't  it  bring  along  the  kangaroos 
and  other  marsupials  of  Australia?  Why  didn't  the 
Australian  marsupials  include  the  American  opossum 
in  the  general  family?  Who  knows?  Who  will  ever 
know?  These  questions  are  precisely  like  those  which 
one  must  ever  ask  when  examining  the  strange  theories 
of  man's  ape-origin.  That  they  defy  the  scientists  of 
this  generation  will  not  be  denied. 

Why  were  Darwin,  Huxley,  Spencer,  Haeckel  and 
the  rest  so  significantly  silent  with  respect  to  the  opos- 
sum? Why  have  the  foremost  evolutionists  of  this  gen- 
eration maintained  similar  silence?  They  have  never 
lacked  the  knowledge  that  the  marsupials,  or  pouched 
mammals,  flourished  during  what  is  described  as  the 
Secondary  epoch,  and  that  the  opossum,  even  though  its 
first  relics  were  found  in  the  so-called  Tertiary  rocks 
under  Paris,  is  really  a  true  marsupial,  and  therefore 
originated  with  all  the  other  marsupials  in  the  Second- 
ary epoch. 

Nor  have  they  lacked  the  knowledge  that  all  the 
mammals  of  the  Secondary  epoch,  without  a  single  ex- 
ception, have  belonged  either  to  the  lowest  form,  the 
monotremes,  or  to  the  next  lowest  form,  the  pouched 
marsupials. 

They  have  no  hesitancy  in  assigning  many  millions 
of  years  to  the  gap  which  separates  the  secondary 
period  from  modern  times,  yet  the  fossils  dating  from 
those  lost  ages,  millions  and  millions  of  years  ago,  are 
identical  in  structure  and  function  with  the  still  living, 
still  flourishing  creatures  of  their  kind.  Why  this 
strange  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  opossum  and  the  kan- 
garoo to  conform  with  the  exacting  demands  of  pro- 
gressive change?  While  the  ape,  some  unknown  form, 
of  course,  which  no  longer  exists,  of  course,  and  which 
has  left  no  fossil  remains  of  any  kind  whatsoever,  of 
course,  was  losing  its  identity  and,  according  to  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  237 

evolutionist,  was  becoming  half-ape,  half-man,  sub- 
man,  cave  man,  Homo  stupidus,  and  finally  Homo  sa- 
piens, the  opossum  and  the  kangaroo,  with  the  bat  and 
the  ant  and  the  whale  and  the  crocodile,  and  scores  of 
other  creatures,  were  content  to  remain,  without 
change,  just  where  they  were.  Man  was  making  prog- 
ress in  strict  accord  with  evolutionary  demands,  but 
these  beasts  were  making  no  progress  of  any  kind 
whatsoever,  as  if  to  question  the  dogmatic  certainties 
of  the  evolutionary  inferences  whose  complications  and 
contradictions  are  ever  becoming  more  and  more  help- 
lessly involved. 

Why  does  man  alone  make  progress  and  why  does 
such  progress  as  he  does  make  have  nothing  to  do  with 
his  body?  All  beasts  have  bodies,  yet  if  there  is  one 
beast-characteristic  concerning  which  we  are  certain,  it 
is  that  no  beast  makes  progress  of  any  kind  whatso- 
ever. Man's  body  is  actually  going  backward.  The 
vast  improvement  in  sanitation,  hygiene,  and  the  ex- 
traordinary advances  of  medicine  and  surgery  have 
not  arrested  the  progress  of  degenerate  diseases. 
Man's  body  has  even  now  entered  the  epoch  of  decay, 
yet  he  continues  astonishingly  to  make  progress,  even 
though  it  be  for  the  most  part  confined  to  material 
things. 

So  we  have  come  to  the  turkey,  which  is  still  classi- 
fied as  a  bird,  although  birds  and  reptiles  are  so  similar 
according  to  the  Darwinians  that  all  birds  must  be  re- 
garded as  modified  descendants  of  ancient  reptilian 
forms.  Birds  can  be  grossly  classified  as  those  with- 
out a  keel  on  the  breast-bone  and  those  with  a  keel.  If 
one  set  of  birds  sprang  from  one  set  of  reptiles  and 
another  set  of  birds  from  another  set  of  reptiles  how 
could  the  two  sets  have  grown  into  forms  so  perfectly 
similar  to  each  other  in  so  many  respects  and  so  ex- 
traordinarily dissimilar  in  so  many  others  ?    But  per- 


238  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

haps  it  all  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  reptiles  and 
the  number  of  millions  of  years  granted  to  them.  What 
kind  of  a  reptile  could  have  been  the  ancestor  of  the 
turkey?  Not  a  rattlesnake,  of  course,  or  any  such  rep- 
tile form.  We  must  find  something  special,  so  we  at- 
tempt to  smooth  out  the  difficulty  by  insisting  that  the 
line  of  descent  from  reptiles  to  birds  has  not  been  from 
ordinary  reptiles,  through  pterodactyl-like  forms,  to 
ordinary  birds,  but  to  the  birds  without  keels  on  the 
breast-bone  from  certain  extinct  reptiles  such  as  the 
Dinosauria. 

One  of  the  best  known  of  these  Dinosauria  is  the 
Iguanodon  of  the  Wealden  formation.  The  skeletal 
characters  of  these  Dinosauria  are  wholly  unlike  those 
of  ordinary  birds,  but  in  certain  points  they  manifest 
resemblances  to  the  osseous  structure  of  such  birds  as 
the  ostrich,  rhea,  emeu,  cassowary,  apteryx,  dinornis, 
etc.  These  resemblances  are  quite  as  marked  toward 
each  other  as  are  the  resemblances,  heretofore  referred 
to,  between  the  skeleton  of  the  horse  and  the  skeleton  of 
man. 

So  we  have  come  to  the  foothills  of  a  whole  mountain 
range  of  difficulties.  What  is  the  relationship  of  the 
pterodactyl  to  the  English  sparrow,  the  robin,  the 
thrush  and  the  turkey?  What  is  the  relationship  be- 
tween the  Dinosauria,  the  ostrich,  etc?  What  is  the 
relationship  of  the  ostrich  to  the  Kentucky  cardinal  and 
the  turkey?  Either  the  two  classes  of  birds  must  have 
had  two  separate  and  distinct  origins  from  which  they 
evolved  to  their  present  conformity  or  they  must  have 
developed  spontaneous  characters  independently — a 
dilemma  which  from  every  angle  hurls  violence  at  the 
already  crumbling  structure  of  " Natural  Selection." 

Certain  it  is  that  the  parent  stock  from  which  we  are 
expected  to  believe  that  both  classifications  of  birds 
descended  could  not  have  had  at  one  and  the  same  time 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  239 

a  shoulder  structure  of  the  two  radically  different 
kinds  which  are  so  strikingly  dissimilar  as  to  compel 
evolutionists  to  seek  an  explanation  of  the  irreconcil- 
able difficulty  by  resorting  to  the  theory  that  although 
all  birds  have  descended  from  reptiles,  the  two  great 
classes  have  descended  separately  from  two  different 
kinds  of  reptiles. 

One  is  not  amazed,  therefore,  to  find  in  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Royal  Institution,  vol.  V.,  p.  279,  a  para- 
graph which  shows  how  sorely  puzzled  must  have  been 
the  state  of  mind  of  Professor  Huxley  when  he  used 
the  following  words:  "I  can  testify,  from  personal 
experience,  it  is  possible  to  have  a  complete  faith  in 
the  general  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  yet  to  hesitate 
in  accepting  the  Nebular  or  the  Uniformitarian,  or  the 
Darwinian  hypotheses  in  all  their  integrity  and  ful- 
ness.' 9 

Huxley  found  it  expedient  to  avoid  all  discussion  of 
the  opossum.  One  searches  in  vain  for  any  admission 
on  the  part  of  Darwin,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  con- 
fession of  Sir  Ray  Lankester  respecting  the  Piltdown 
fragments:  "We  are  stumped  and  baffled.' '  A  little 
less  vanity  and  a  little  more  frankness  would  have 
been  becoming  to  these  apostles  of  chance  evolution 
just  as  they  would  well  become  some  of  their  modern 
heirs.  We  are  trying  against  odds  to  resist  the  temp- 
tation to  wander  away  from  the  turkey,  which  surely 
is  not  so  vain  a  bird  as  the  peacock,  and  yet  the  whole 
subject  of  vanity  among  the  foremost  evolutionists  of 
the  last  century  is  so  disconcerting,  so  distracting  and 
so  obsessing  that  we  must  linger  upon  it,  if  but  for  a 
moment. 

The  present  generation  has  seemingly  quite  forgot- 
ten the  vanity  of  Herbert  Spencer,  who  even  went  so 
far  in  his  passion  for  notoriety  as  to  take  into  his  con- 
fidence Edward  Clodd,  then  president  of  the  Folk-Lore 


240  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Society,  by  showing  him  documents  to  prove  that  the 
whole  theory  of  evolution  was  formulated  not  by  Dar- 
win and  Wallace,  but  by  himself,  in  the  year  preceding 
the  publication  of  Darwin's  " Origin  of  Species.' '  You 
will  find  this  dismal  tale  in  Clodd's  still  more  dismal 
work,  "Pioneers  of  Evolution,"  New  York,  1897,  Ap- 
pleton,  just  as  you  will  find  in  Darwin's  letters,  edited 
by  his  son  Francis,  the  correspondence  between  Darwin 
and  Wallace  showing  how  it  was  proposed,  through 
"Mr.  Huxley's  unrivalled  power  of  tearing  the  heart 
out  of  a  book,"  to  compel  the  world  to  "marvel  at  the 
skill  with  which  he  makes  Suarez  speak  on  his  side" 
(of  the  theory  of  evolution)  when  both  Darwin  and 
Huxley  knew  that  only  through  corruption  could  either 
of  them  make  it  appear  that  Suarez  was  for  them  and 
not  against  them. 

To  appreciate  the  simple  facts  of  the  matter  the 
student  need  only  read  "Darwin's  Letters,"  Appleton, 
1893,  chap,  xiv.,  pp.  287-295;  "The  Genesis  of  Species," 
by  St.  George  Mivart,  Appleton,  1871,  pp.  28,  29,  30,  31, 
and  "Lessons  from  Nature,"  by  St.  George  Mivart, 
Appleton,  1876,  pp.  430-449.  These  sad  references  are 
demanded  by  the  same  kind  of  truth  that  "robbed  the 
Piltdo wn  man  of  a  muzzle  that  ill  became  him. ' '  That 
they  bear  more  resemblance  to  the  peacock  than  to  the 
turkey  is  not  so  much  the  fault  of  Evolution  as  it  is  a 
symptom  of  man's  infirmity. 

So  we  come  to  the  turkey,  which  fs  admitted  to  be  of 
North  American  origin — a  bird  of  Mexico.  The  opos- 
sum, though  now  confined  to  North  America,  once  lived 
in  Europe.  Such  is  the  evidence.  The  turkey,  how- 
ever, as  the  evidence  proves,  has  ever  been  confined  to 
America.  Certainly  this  is  so  as  far  back  as  Miocene 
times.  The  oldest  domesticated  bird  and  the  one  most 
common  throughout  the  world  is  the  fowl  so  extensively 
bred  by  the  ancient  Egyptians — later  used  for  cock 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  241 

fighting  in  England.  The  ancestor  of  our  domestic  hen 
and  cock,  known  to  children  as  "chickens," — the  Ban- 
kiva  fowl  (Gallus  bankiva)  is  found  wild  to  this  day 
from  the  Himalayas  to  the  Philippine  Islands.  All 
these  fowls,  all  peacocks  and  all  pheasants  are  recog- 
nized by  naturalists  as  birds  of  a  feather.  They  are 
so  closely  related  as  to  be  described  as  gallinaceous 
birds — from  Gallus,  of  course.  They  originated  in 
Asia.  Not  one  of  them  has  ever  been  found  in  Africa, 
where  an  entirely  different  group  of  forms  akin  to  the 
Guinea  fowl  is  found. 

We  have  seen  the  marsupial  opossum  in  North 
America  and  the  marsupial  kangaroo  in  Australia,  yet 
never  was  there  a  peacock,  pheasant,  chicken  or  Guinea 
fowl  found  in  Australia. 

But  we  do  find  in  Australia  the  bush  turkey,  which 
differs  from  all  the  other  birds  of  the  world  with  re- 
spect to  the  manner  of  hatching  its  eggs.  Every  Amer- 
ican farmer  who  maintains  a  silo  in  which  he  ferments 
corn  stalks  and  corn  in  the  production  of  ensilage,  as 
a  winter  food  for  his  cows,  knows  that  throughout  the 
entire  fermentation  process  considerable  heat  is  given 
off.  The  Australian  turkey  also  knows  this,  so  instead 
of  sitting  on  its  own  eggs  to  hatch  them  out  through 
the  heat  of  its  own  body  it  deposits  them  in  mounds, 
covering  the  mounds  with  heaps  of  decaying  or  fer- 
menting vegetation.  The  heat  thus  evolved  is  all  that 
the  Australian  turkey  requires  for  the  hatching  of  its 
eggs.  There  is  still  another  turkey — a  true  gallinace- 
ous bird — to  be  found  in  Brazil.  The  most  gorgeous 
of  all  the  turkeys,  known  as  the  ocellated  turkey,  is 
found  in  Central  America.  So  we  have  turkeys  of 
many  kinds,  peacocks,  pheasants,  chickens  and  Guinea 
fowls,  together  with  partridges,  grouse,  and  quails,  all 
of  which,  though  in  many  respects  extraordinarily  dif- 
ferent from  each  other,  are  nevertheless  true  gallinace- 


242  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ous  birds  which  we  must  believe,  according  to  the  evolu- 
tionist, are  the  descendants  of  a  certain  unknown  rep- 
tile. 

So  far  we  know  that  there  are  nearly  twelve  thou- 
sand different  species  of  birds,  of  which  the  "scratch- 
ers"  are  assigned  to  the  gallinaceous  group.  The 
others  are  classed  as  "perchers,"  "cooers,"  "climb- 
ers," "waders,"  "runners,"  "swimmers"  and  "birds 
of  prey."  These  primitive  classifications  are  divided 
into  extraordinary  groups.  First  there  are  the  crows, 
birds  of  paradise,  and  humming  birds ;  then  the  king- 
fishers and  their  allies;  then  the  woodpecker  and  its 
cousins ;  then  the  cuckoos ;  then  the  doves ;  then  the  par- 
rots; then  the  eagle  and  the  owls;  then  the  pelicans; 
then  the  herons ;  then  the  bustards  and  rails ;  then  the 
gallinaceous  birds,  including  the  turkey;  then  the 
snipes;  then  the  gulls;  then  the  auks;  then  the  ducks 
and  geese ;  then  the  penguins ;  then  the  ostrich.  How 
they  differ,  one  from  the  other ! 

The  turkey  belongs  to  a  comparatively  small  group 
whose  different  representatives  inhabit  different  quar- 
ters of  the  earth.  This  group  is  remarkable  for  the 
fact  that  it  contains  the  most  ancient  species  ever  do- 
mesticated by  man. 

Here  we  may  well  repeat  the  confounding  question 
apparently  first  asked  by  Mivart,  "What  is  a  turkey?" 

Certainly  it  isn't  a  condor  or  a  vulture,  which  in  their 
own  way  present  us  with  a  new  puzzle.  The  huge  con- 
dor of  the  Andes  and  the  king  vulture  are  so  excep- 
tional in  structure  that  naturalists  actually  insist  that 
they  are  not  vultures  at  all.  Nor  is  it  a  rhea,  America's 
ostrich,  the  bony  girdle  of  whose  hip  differs  in  con- 
struction from  that  of  all  other  birds  in  the  world.  It 
is  not  to  be  classified  with  the  parrot-like  hoatzin  of 
South  America,  part  of  whose  wing  is  extraordinarily 
large  for  a  bird  and  so  provided  with  two  long  clawed 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  243 

fingers  as  to  enable  it  to  walk  more  like  a  four-footed 
beast  than  a  bird. 

So  we  see  that  among  a  set  of  peculiar  American 
birds,  the  turkey  occupies  a  position  of  such  peculiarity 
as  to  defy  explanation.  The  wonder  is,  as  we  shall  see, 
that  naturalists  even  suspect  that  the  turkey  is  a  bird 
at  all.  Birds  are  built  for  flight.  Their  rapidity  of 
movement  and  endurance,  together  with  their  extraor- 
dinary conservation  of  energy  and  economy  of  motion, 
must  ever  confound  the  aerial  engineer.  Nothing  could 
be  so  inefficient  as  the  aerial  navigation  of  1921.  There 
is  more  power  in  a  1921  airplane  than  was  in  the  sails 
of  a  whole  flotilla  of  frigates  a  hundred  years  ago.  The 
stupendous  power  of  the  aerial  motor  has  given  us 
sensational  results  quickly,  so  that  the  problems  of 
flight  have  been  actually  disregarded.  Man's  flight  de- 
pends upon  freak  devices  in  which  an  aviator  has  at 
his  command  a  howling  volcano.  The  bird's  wing 
fans  the  air  with  a  slow  motion,  three  strokes  to  the 
second.  This  slow  motion  produces  high  speed  in 
flight,  whereas  the  airplane's  propeller  has  the  speed 
of  a  rifle  bullet  with  comparatively  slow  speed  of  flight. 

The  bird's  whole  structure  is  extraordinary.  All  its 
organs  are  so  arranged  as  to  bring  its  center  of  gravity 
precisely  where  sustained  flight  demands  it,  yielding 
at  the  same  time  the  greatest  strength  with  the  least 
possible  weight.  Lightness  of  structure  and  great 
power  with  muscles  capable  of  lifting  and  depressing 
the  wings  are  marvelously  effected.  For  the  opposite 
wing  actions  huge  muscles,  if  arranged  as  among  mam- 
mals, would  be  attached  to  the  back  as  well  as  to  the 
breast.  But  this  would  be  in  defiance  of  gravity,  con- 
sequently the  great  muscles  working  in  opposite  direc- 
tions are  found  on  the  breast  of  the  bird  just  where 
weights  are  attached  to  the  keel  of  a  sailing  craft.  By 
the  aid  of  thin,  tough  tendons  the  bird  attains  great 


244  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

strength  in  its  legs  and  yet  is  able  to  draw  the  strong 
and  heavy  leg  muscles  up  toward  the  center  of  gravity 
where  they  will  least  interfere  with  flight. 

The  turkey  shares  with  all  other  birds  these  struc- 
tural characters,  yet  it  differs  from  all  other  birds  as 
radically  as  a  monkey  differs  from  a  horse,  a  bat  from 
a  hog,  a  squirrel  from  a  walrus,  a  deer  from  a  whale 
or  an  elephant  from  a  jack-rabbit.  Some  beasts  are 
covered  with  hair,  some  with  fur,  some  with  wool,  but 
all  birds  are  covered  with  feathers.  As  no  such  thing 
as  a  feather  is  possessed  by  any  other  creature  except 
birds,  the  turkey,  which  possesses  feathers,  must  be  a 
bird.  But  birds,  we  are  told,  stand  midway  between 
reptiles  and  beasts.  All  reptiles  possess  cold  blood. 
All  beasts  possess  warm  blood.  A  reptile's  blood  may 
be  a  low  as  60  degrees  or  40  degrees  Fahrenheit.  The 
blood  of  beasts  approximates  100  degrees  Fahrenheit. 
The  blood  of  birds  should  come  between  them,  yet  the 
temperature  of  the  turkey  is  107  degrees  Fahrenheit. 
Thus  the  turkey,  which  comes  between  the  reptile  and 
the  beast,  puts  the  beast  between  the  reptile  and  the 
turkey.    For  that  matter  so  does  the  barnyard  fowl. 

Birds  differ  more  from  reptiles  than  reptiles  differ 
from  beasts,  not  only  in  temperature  but  in  other  fac- 
tors. Some  beasts  have  but  two  limbs;  some  reptiles 
have  but  two  limbs ;  some  reptiles  have  no  limbs  at  all ;, 
some  reptiles  have  four  limbs;  some  beasts  have  four 
limbs.  Every  bird  has  two  limbs.  The  limbs  of  beasts 
and  reptiles  are  variously  constructed.  There  is  no 
resemblance  between  the  structure  of  the  wings  of  the 
bat  and  the  scoop  of  the  mole ;  the  paddles  of  the  whale 
and  the  foot  of  the  horse,  but  in  birds  the  hind-limbs  are 
always  • 'walking' '  legs  and  the  fore-limbs  are  always 
wings.  Many  beasts,  with  many  reptiles,  have  very 
long  tails.  Some  have  none  at  all.  But  every  bird  pos- 
sesses tail  feathers  supported  by  a  tail  root  of  flesh  and 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 

Phota'/rapft    b;/   Eihciu    II.    Sunburn. 

Even  the  grizzly  hear,  like  the  gorilla,  can  he  com- 
pelled to  stand  upright.  In  this  unnatural  :itti- 
tude  lie  assumes  a  position  more  erect  than 
the  forced  position  of  the  anthropoid  ape  when 
the  hitter  is  compelled  by  his  trainer  t"  t:ik<' 
a    "standing    posture.''      This    uprightness,    in 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  245 

bone.  Some  reptiles  have  scales,  other  have  none. 
Great  diversity  exists  in  their  coverings.  No  reptile 
has  feathers,  but  all  birds  have  scales  on  their  feet  as 
well  as  feathers  on  their  bodies. 

Is  the  turkey  reptile,  beast  or  bird?  All  beasts  and 
reptiles  have  teeth  except  ant-eaters,  turtles  and  terra- 
pins, yet  no  bird  has  teeth.  The  many  thousands  of 
species  of  animals,  with  three  lonely  exceptions,  have 
teeth,  yet  of  the  twelve  thousand  species  of  birds  not 
one  has  teeth.  How  comes  it  that  these  toothless  birds 
have  descended  from  toothed  reptiles? 

In  Miocene  times,  although  the  parrot  lived  in  Eu- 
rope, the  turkey  did  not.  The  evidence  indicates  that 
it  was  confined  to  America.  The  Archeopteryx,  found, 
1861,  in  oolitic  strata  in  Bavaria,  is  generally  looked 
upon  as  the  oldest  of  all  the  extinct  birds.  It,  too,  dif- 
fered from  all  other  birds.  Instead  of  having  a  stubby, 
fleshy,  nosey  pad  of  bone  and  flesh  for  a  tail,  it  pos- 
sessed a  real  tail  containing  twenty  bones,  from  each 
of  which  two  long  feathers  projected. 

The  turkey  symbolizes  the  great  riddle.  Evolution 
proposes  a  reptilian  beginning  and  points  to  the  Iguan- 
odon  and  the  ostrich,  the  one  a  reptile,  the  other  a  bird, 
to  show  that  a  transition  could  have  been  effected  from 
the  reptile  to  the  bird,  the  inference  being  that  the  bird 
ostrich  is  the  nearest  thing  to  the  reptile  Iguanodon. 
But  the  ostrich  is  millions  of  years  younger  than  the 
Archeopteryx,  which  is  not  at  all  like  an  ostrich  and 
certainly  like  no  reptile.  Except  for  its  tail  the  Arch- 
eopteryx is  more  modern  than  some  modern  living 
types,  even  though  it  has  been  extinct  these  millions 
of  years.  Moreover  the  ostrich  is  not  a  creature  half- 
reptile,  half-bird,  now  progressing  toward  the  true 
flying  bird,  but  on  the  contrary  it  is  now  looked  upon 
as  the  degenerate  descendant  of  birds  that  used  to  fly 


246  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

millions  of  years  ago  but  have  now  lost  their  power  of 
flight. 

If  the  turkey,  which  can  take  the  air  in  a  fashion, 
knows  anything  concerning  the  origin  of  birds,  not  only 
does  it  refuse  to  tell,  but  by  the  development  of  its 
curious  characters  it  evidently  has  conspired  to  so  mud- 
dle and  conceal  its  knowledge  that  no  man  may  filch 
from  the  confusion  a  hint  of  the  truth. 

The  broad  indisputable  fact  stands  out  beyond  dis- 
pute that  no  species  of  animal,  save  man  only,  makes 
progress.  Progress  results  from  the  exercise  of  a  ra- 
tional intelligence,  free  choice  and  free  will.  Man 
alone  possesses  these  attributes  of  man.  Rational  in- 
telligence differs  from  instinct.  All  animals  possess 
instinct.  Whence  came  man  by  his  rational  intelligence 
if  it  be  not  true  that  he  is  made  in  the  image  and  like- 
ness of  God?  The  irrationality  of  animals  is  shown 
by  what,  if  they  were  rational,  would  have  to  be  called 
their  exceeding  stupidity.  "Intelligent"  dogs  can  be 
taught  innumerable  tricks  and  are,  therefore,  "ra- 
tional." Alas  for  the  soundness  of  such  deduction. 
St.  George  Mivart,  demolishing  the  theory  that  any 
animal  is  capable  of  exercising  reason  in  the  slightest 
degree,  and  presenting  scores  of  examples  in  proof  of 
what  must,  upon  reflection,  be  obvious  to  all,  says 
("The  Groundwork  of  Science,"  1898,  pp.  177-178) : 

"Dogs  have  seen  fuel  put  upon  fires  again  and  again, 
yet  what  dog  ever  puts  on  any  itself  to  maintain  the 
heat  it  so  much  enjoys?  Apes  have  been  said  some- 
times to  warm  themselves  at  deserted  fires,  yet  no  one 
asserts  that  they  have  replenished  them."  With  re- 
spect to  the  "pet  cat  which  has  now  and  again  got  a 
piece  of  bone  fixed  between  its  back  teeth,  the  useless 
motions  the  animal  will  make  with  its  paw  are  suffi- 
ciently irrational ;  but  it  will  act  in  the  same  way  again 
and  again  and  will  sometimes  struggle  against  its  mas- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  247 

ter  while  he  removes  the  object  which  distresses  it. 
Swallows  will  continue  to  build  on  a  house  which  they 
can  see  is  being  pulled  down.  Even  an  elephant,  an 
animal  often  thought  so  extremely  wise,  has  been 
known  to  pull  off  the  end  of  its  trunk  which  had  got 
caught  in  a  cord  instead  of  calling  for  help  and  waiting 
till  its  keeper  came." 

So,  too,  he  says,  "with  respect  to  apes  we  have  al- 
ways to  be  on  our  guard  against  the  deceptive  effect  a 
of  their  tricks  and  ways  due  to  the  close  resemblance 
which  exists  between  their  bodily  frame  and  our  own. 
On  this  account,  if  two  actions  essentially  similar  are 
done,  one  by  a  pig,  the  other  by  an  ape,  the  latter 
would  necessarily  appear  in  our  eyes  to  be  far  more 
of  a  ' human'  action." 

Who  has  not  commented  on  the  " human' '  method 
employed  by  the  ape  in  breaking  a  nut  and  extracting 
its  meat  from  the  shell?  How  wonderfully  "human"! 
Yet  when  the  squirrel  performs  the  same  feat,  with  a 
neatness  and  dispatch  of  which  the  ape  is  incapable, 
no  such  comment,  concerning  "humanness,"  is  offered. 
Even  the  advertisements  in  the  subway  trains  inform 
us  that  "You  can  teach  a  parrot  to  say  'just  as  good' 
but  it  won  't  know  what  it  is  talking  about. ' ' 

For  scores  of  astonishing  instances  of  the  radical 
and  fundamental  difference  between  the  rational  in- 
telligence of  man  and  the  unreasoning  instinct  of  ani- 
mals see  "The  Humanizing  of  the  Brute,"  H.  Mucker- 
mann ;  ' '  Psychology  of  Ants  and  of  Higher  Animals, ' 
E.  Wasmann;  and  the  entire  series  of  works  by  J. 
Henri  Fabre. 


CHAPTER  XX 

An  Osborn  Letter 

Osborn 's  letter  on  MeCann — "Evidence  of  convergence ' ' — Relics  of  the 
medieval  ages — Why  marsupials  still? — Effect  of  misinformation. 

We  are  still  unable  to  grasp  the  significance  of  Pro- 
fessor Osborn 's  confession:  "Man  is  not  3escended 
from  any  known  ape,  either  living  or  fossil. ' '  We  shall 
probably  never  know  why  he  adds  a  "but"  to  this 
confession:  "But  a  hypothetical  ancestor  was  the 
Propliopthecus  Haeckeli."  Thus  it  becomes  increas- 
ingly difficult  to  comprehend  the  motive  for  exhibiting 
as  scientific  truth  the  sweeping  contradictions  and 
flimsy  hypotheses  of  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man.  Are 
we  to  consider  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  as  a  Nurs- 
ery of  Truth  or  the  Sepulchre  of  a  Dead  Evolution? 

Considering  the  extent  of  the  influences  masquerad- 
ing in  the  name  of  "science"  it  requires  no  great  ef- 
fort to  understand  why  men  and  women  who  pride 
themselves  on  being  "by  no  means  illiterate"  have 
come  by  the  opinion  that  there  is  a  general  agreement, 
a  satisfactory  concurrence  of  conviction  and  a  univer- 
sal acceptation  among  scientists  of  the  doctrine  that 
man  is  a  descendant  of  the  ape. 

Professor  Osborn  himself,  in  a  letter  to  the  editor 
of  the  New  York  Globe,  June  1,  1921,  gave  a  demon- 
stration of  his  method  of  creating  impressions  at  the 
expense  of  truth.  He  said:  "The  American  Museum 
of  Natural  History  and  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man, 
to  which  Alfred  W.  MeCann  refers,  scrupulously  avoid 
presenting  theories  and  rest  on  the  solid  ground  of 
well  ascertained  facts.    This  is  why  this  Hall  is  sought 

248 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  249 

not  only  by  scientists  from  all  parts  of  the  world  and 
by  the  rising  generation  of  scientific  men  and  women, 
but  also  by  religious  teachers  who  come  here  to  see 
what  Nature  has  thus  far  revealed  concerning  man's 
past  history. 

"From  time  to  time  I  see  parties  of  clergymen  of 
different  denominations  studying  what  this  Hall  ex- 
hibits of  our  past  life.  The  spiritual  value  of  the 
emergence  of  the  Cro-Magnon  race,  many  thousands 
of  years  ago,  with  its  deep  religious  sentiments,  is  one 
of  the  greatest  discoveries  of  modern  times  relating  to 
the  spiritual  development  of  man.  It  is  so  regarded 
by  all  teachers  and  writers  who  are  keeping  up  to  date 
in  the  progress  of  discovery  and  human  thought.  For 
a  scholarly  treatment  of  this  wonderful  race  I  would 
refer  the  author  (Alfred  W.  McCann)  of  these  ar- 
ticles to  two  papers  by  James  J.  Walsh,  M.D.,  Ph.D., 
entitled  'The  Evolution  of  Man,'  which  appeared  in 
the  Catholic  World,  New  York  City,  May,  1916,  pp. 
207-218,  and  June,  1916,  pp.  315-332. 

'  'The  first  of  these  papers  closes  as  follows:  'We 
have  a  right  to  expect  that  professors  at  universities 
shall  teach  nothing  as  truth  to  their  students  except 
what  they  are  absolutely  certain  of.  We  expect,  above 
all,  that  what  is  presented  as  science,  for  scientia 
means  knowledge,  not  conjecture  nor  theory,  shall  be 
beyond  dispute  and  cavil.  If  there  is  the  slightest  rea- 
sonable doubt  about  so  scientific  theories,  we  expect 
them  not  to  be  represented  as  doctrines,  but  solely  as 
theories  with  whatever  doubt  there  is  about  them 
rather  emphasized  than  minimized  or  obscured  in  any 
way.  Wre  have  a  right  to  expect  that  the  relation  of 
professor  and  student  shall  be  above  all  one  of  the 
utmost  candor  and  sincerity,  lacking  in  pretense  and 
in  any  attempt  at  producing  a  sensation  for  the  sake 
of  the  sensation. 

"  'When  university  professors  teach  the  public, 
moreover,  we  expect  from  them  a  greater  regard  for 
their  position  as  teachers.     For  if,  as  Juvenal  said, 


250  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

' '  maxima  pueris  debitur  reverentia, ' '  the  greatest  rev- 
erence is  due  to  youth,  then  surely  the  public,  who, 
without  the  means  of  critical  judgment,  sit  as  unques- 
tioning children  at  the  feet  of  the  professors,  should 
never,  by  any  half  truth  or  any  suppression  or  distor- 
tion of  truth,  be  led  to  accept  as  scientific  truth  what 
is  still  really  a  matter  of  dispute  and  unsettled  by 
scientists  themselves.'  " 

(Careful  comparison  of  Osborn's  letter  with  the 
matter  quoted  in  the  two  preceding  paragraphs  dis- 
closes an  exactness  in  quoting  fragments  minus  the  re- 
buking text;  minus  any  reference  to  \the  chastisement 
it  inflicted.) 

"It  is  in  this  spirit  that  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man 
has  been  arranged.  Every  fact  has  been  presented 
in  its  true  significance.  From  forty-three  years  of 
experience  as  a  teacher  I  have  come  to  believe  that 
the  most  serious  digression  on  the  part  of  a  teacher  is 
to  substitute  opinion  or  theory  for  fact.  In  every  de- 
partment of  human  thought — philosophy,  economics, 
sociology,  as  well  as  in  human  and  comparative  anat- 
omy, around  which  the  central  cases  of  the  Hall  of  the 
Age  of  Man  are  arranged — the  great  effort  has  been 
to  present  the  evidence  simply  and  clearly.  To  write 
down  nothing  in  hypothesis,  nothing  to  extenuate — 
this  is  the  secret  of  the  educational  value  of  the  Hall 
of  the  Age  of  Man.  It  is  inspiring  and  uplifting  be- 
cause it  is  truthful.  It  represents  a  century  devoted 
to  research  in  all  parts  of  the  world  and  leaves  out  en- 
tirely the  century  of  speculation  and  hypothesis,  as 
well  as  of  unenlightenment,  criticism,  and  misrepre- 
sentation. 

"I  shall  be  very  glad  to  have  you  publish  this  let- 
ter if  you  like  in  the  columns  of  your  valuable  paper. ' ' 

(Signed)     Henry  Fairfield  Osborn, 

Honorary  Curator,  Department  of  Vertebrate 
Palaeontology,  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  251 

By  his  reference  to  a  Catholic  publication  and  a 
Catholic  writer  (Dr.  Walsh)  he  creates  the  impres- 
sion that  on  the  subject  of  Dr.  Walsh's  paper,  "The 
Evolution  of  Man,"  he  and  Dr.  Walsh  think  alike  and 
that  both  reflect  the  views  of  the  Catholic  Church.  But 
what  are  the  facts?  The  very  first  paper  of  Dr.  Walsh, 
to  which  Professor  Osborn  thus  appeals,  constitutes  a 
sweeping  criticism  of  Professor  Osborn 's  book,  "Men 
of  the  Old  Stone  Age." 

Referring  to  the  surprising  manner  in  which  Pro- 
fessor Osborn  features  the  reconstruction  of  the  Pilt- 
down  man  ' '  since  practically  all  the  weight  of  authority 
is  against  any  such  estimate  of  its  significance, "  Dr. 
Walsh  says:  "Is  not  such  unwarranted  piecing  to- 
gether of  discrepant  material  unworthy  even  of  a 
pettifogging  attorney?  .  .  .  Such  juggling  bespeaks 
the  mountebank;  not  the  scientist." 

Surely  Professor  Osborn  did  not  believe  that  the 
editor  of  the  New  York  Globe  or  the  writer  would  take 
the  trouble  to  obtain  a  copy  of  an  old  magazine  con- 
taining such  a  reference  to  himself  when  he  appealed 
to  Dr.  Walsh's  paper  on  "The  Evolution  of  Man," 
as  "proof"  that  he  and  Dr.  Walsh,  reflecting  alike  the 
views  of  the  Catholic  Church,  were  representatives  of 
the  theory  which  the  writer  had  undertaken  to  criticize. 

Professor  Osborn  characterized  the  writer  as  "just 
half  a  century  behind  the  times"  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  "the  religious  men  of  all  the  churches  accept 
evolution  as  a  fact."  While  he  was  making  this  state- 
ment the  American  Lutheran  Publicity  Bureau,  with 
offices  in  the  Hartford  Building,  22-26  East  17th  Street, 
New  York  City,  was  publishing  in  the  metropolitan 
press  at  regular  advertising  rates  a  vigorous  denuncia- 
tion of  the  so-called  scientific  theories  of  man's  origin 
which  run  counter  to  the  doctrine  of  creation  by  God. 

If  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  is  surely  one  of  the 


252  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

churches,  accepts  evolution  from  the  ape  as  a  fact,  why 
does  it  go  to  the  expense  of  advertising  the  contrary? 

The  writer  is  not  classifiable  as  "a  religious,"  and 
is  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  with  truth  and  candor  Professor 
Osborn's  attempt  to  take  refuge  in  a  magazine  article 
published  five  years  before,  and  therefore  obtainable 
with  the  greatest  difficulty,  particularly  when  it  is  dis- 
covered that  instead  of  affording  him  a  refuge,  it  is  in 
reality  an  exposure  and  refutation  of  his  theories,  and 
quite  as  warm  in  color  as  the  Lutheran  ape-man-pro- 
tests. 

It  is  precisely  because  public  opinion  has  little  or  no 
means  of  access  to  such  refutations  that  public  opinion 
is  prone  to  ridicule  any  attempt  to  present  facts  out 
of  harmony  with  public  opinion.  Of  course  this  atti- 
tude of  the  public  constitutes  intolerance,  but  the  pub- 
lic does  not  regard  it  as  such,  and  never  will  while 
opinions  are  poured  from  high  places  as  "scientific 
fact." 

Having  no  suspicion  of  its  own  that  the  facts  are 
wholly  different  from  the  ready-made  opinions  it  ac- 
cepts, the  public  is  inclined  to  look  upon  any  surprising 
appearance  of  heretofore  hidden  facts  as  so  much  sci- 
entific heresy, 

' '  Evidence  of  Convergence  ' ' 

Professor  Osborn,  insisting  that  he  does  not  sub- 
stitute opinion  or  theory  for  fact ;  that  he  writes  down 
nothing  in  hypothesis;  that  his  work  is  inspiring  and 
uplifting  because  it  is  truthful,  is  curiously  silent  on 
the  "Evidence  of  Convergence."  Nowhere  does  he 
refer  to  convergence  in  his  ape-man  theory,  yet 
palaeontology,  which  is  his  specialty,  is  itself  responsi- 
ble for  the  observations  that  animals  which  stand  far 
apart  exhibit  changes  in  the  same  direction  and  de- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  253 

velop  these  changes  so  that  eventually  they  approach 
each  other  nearer  than  they  were  before. 

In  other  words,  they  "converge"  toward  each  other. 
By  convergence  palaeontology  attempts  to  explain  how, 
within  quite  different  groups  of  mammalia,  a  most  de- 
ceptive similarity  of  the  jaw  construction  is  observed. 
During  Osborn's  own  career  a  polyganol  epidermal 
plate  was  ascribed  by  Professor  Pilhol  to  an  extinct 
armadillo,  a  true  member  of  the  mammalia  family, 
although  subsequently  an  almost  exact  replica  was 
found,  this  time  on  the  head  of  a  reptile ! 

Osborn's  own  evidence  of  convergence  explains  the 
"resemblance"  of  whales  to  fish,  although  whales  are 
not  fish  at  all,  but  true  mammals.  Changing  their  fore- 
limbs  (arms)  into  fins  (paddles)  and  their  hind-limbs 
into  nothingness  the  whales  have  converged  ever  more 
and  more  in  external  features  toward  true  fishes  with 
whom  they  are  not  at  all  related  while  they  themselves 
have  remained  true  mammals.  Why  does  Professor 
Osborn  withhold  the  suggestion  that  apes,  despite  their 
superficial  convergence  in  externals  toward  a  fantastic 
resemblance  to  man,  remain  nevertheless  true  apes? 
The  writer  frankly  admits  that  convergence  explains 
nothing,  adds  nothing  and  takes  nothing  away  when 
any  theory  of  evolution  based  on  natural  selection  is 
under  discussion.  Why  has  the  giraffe,  for  instance, 
not  converged  toward  the  elephant?  If  natural  selec- 
tion explains  the  long  neck  of  the  giraffe  for  high 
browsing  purposes  why  would  an  extension  of  its  nose, 
like  the  extension  of  the  nose  of  the  elephant,  not  have 
been  better?  Why  has  no  other  hoofed  quadruped 
acquired  a  long  neck  and  a  lofty  stature  besides  the 
giraffe?  Why  has  the  camel  not  acquired  a  proboscis 
like  the  elephant?  Why  is  the  elephant  alone  the 
beneficiary  of  a  proboscis?  Why  has  the  elephant  no 
neck  at  all?    If  natural  selection  is  a  freakish,  whim- 


254  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

sical,  capricious  handmaiden  of  evolution  it  ceases  to 
be  natural  selection  and  becomes  merely  bizarrish 
selection. 

Darwin  admits  law  and  order ;  Wallace  demands  law 
and  order;  Bateson  proves  law  and  order,  hence  the 
evolutionist's  difficulties  become  more  and  more  in- 
tolerable. 

The  vagueness  and  confusion  provoked  by  the  giraffe 
is  set  forth  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  who  so  greatly  influ- 
enced Darwin.  He  says  (" Antiquity  of  Man,"  1863, 
pp.  410-411):  "  Lamarck  when  speculating  on  the 
origin  of  the  long  neck  of  the  giraffe  imagined  that 
quadruped  to  have  stretched  himself  up  in  order  to 
reach  the  boughs  of  lofty  trees  until  by  continued 
efforts  and  longing  to  reach  higher  he  obtained  an 
elongated  neck.  Darwin  and  Wallace  simply  supposed 
that,  in  a  season  of  scarcity,  a  longer-necked  variety 
survived  the  others  and  transmitted  its  peculiarity  to 
its  successors.  Every  naturalist  admits  that  there  is 
a  general  tendency  in  animals  and  plants  to  vary;  but 
it  is  usually  taken  for  granted  that  there  are  certain 
limits  beyond  which  each  species  cannot  pass  under 
any  circumstances  or  in  any  number  of  generations. 
(Here  you  have  a  law  which  is  not  bizarrish.)  Darwin 
and  Wallace  say  that  the  oppositive  hypothesis,  which 
assumes  that  every  species  is  capable  of  varying  in- 
definitely from  its  original  type,  is  not  a  whit  more 
arbitrary.  We  have  no  right,  they  say,  to  assume, 
should  we  find  that  a  variable  species  can  no  longer 
be  made  to  vary  in  a  certain  direction,  that  it  has 
reached  the  utmost  limits  to  which  it  might,  if  more 
time  were  allowed,  be  made  to  diverge  from  the  parent 
type. ' ' 

Perhaps  in  another  million  of  years  the  giraffe  will 
have  twice  as  much  neck  as  he  now  has  and  the  elephant 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  255 

less  neck  than  none  at  all,  and  a  proboscis  tremend- 
ously extended.    Perhaps ! 

Relics  of  the  Medieval  Ages 

If  it  be  true  that  animals,  originally  widely  sepa- 
rated in  kind,  become  more  " similar' '  by  variation  in 
the  same  direction,  and  if  it  be  true  that  in  no  case 
does  the  entire  change,  which  the  varied  forms  finally 
show  in  comparison  with  the  original  forms,  extend 
so  far  that  offspring  and  parent  can  no  longer  be 
united  within  the  same  systematic  class,  all  of  them 
still  forming  the  same  order,  the  same  family  and 
even  the  same  genus,  how  does  Professor  Osborn,  upon 
evidence  which  he  himself  admits  does  not  exist,  ex- 
hibit, as  a  positively  established  fact,  the  opinion  that 
man  descended  from  some  form  of  ape,  even  though 
no  such  ape  is  now  living  and  no  fossil  remains  of  any 
such  ape  have  ever  been  discovered? 

When  critics  a  half  century  ago,  to  which  period 
the  professor  assigns  the  writer,  pointed  out  the  flaws 
in  HaeckePs  hypothetical  pedigree,  they  were  de- 
nounced as  "relics  of  the  medieval  ages." 

Yet  those  very  flaws  were  later  discovered  by  scien- 
tists themselves  to  be  not  accidental  errors  but  de- 
liberate falsifications.  Why  does  Professor  Osborn 
not  refer  to  them  at  all? 

If  there  were  no  plan  in  nature  why  are  extraordi- 
nary variations  permitted  within  limits  and  no  self- 
perpetuating  variations  at  all  outside  those  limits! 
Breeders  can  develop  surprising  variations  in  dogs, 
horses,  cattle,  pigeons,  cabbage,  peas,  garden  cress, 
etc.  A  dwarf  race  can  be  crossed  with  a  giant  race 
of  the  same  species,  yet  fruitful  inter-crossing  does 
not  occur  except  between  individuals  of  the  same 
species,  and  even  then  sometimes  not  at  all.     Why 


256  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

doesn't  the  horse  mate  with  the  ass?  Why  is  there  no 
cross  between  the  apple  and  the  pear?  Why,  in  Aus- 
tralia, which  is  a  whole  continent  and  which  science 
itself  tells  us  was  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
when  the  most  primitive  forms  of  the  mammalia  first 
appeared,  have  all  the  marsupials,  Tasmanian  wolf, 
Australian  ant-eater,  mole,  wombat,  kangaroo  and  wal- 
labie,  assuming  the  most  varied  modes  of  existence 
and  suitable  construction  of  the  body,  remained 
marsupials  ? 

The  marsupials  are  confined,  as  we  have  seen,  with 
the  single  exception  of  the  South  American  kangaroo 
rat,  to  Australia,  although  palaeontology  provides  evi- 
dence that  earlier  in  the  Secondary  and  Tertiary 
periods  they  existed  in  Europe  and  in  North  and 
South  America. 

Why  Maksupials  Still? 

Why,  let  us  repeat,  through  these  millions  of  years, 
have  they  remained  marsupials,  although  Australia 
has  presented  opportunities  for  the  most  diverse  modes 
of  existence  ?  Why,  if  not  because  the  marsupials  pre- 
sent a  real  type  which  varies  in  form  but  is  not  aban- 
doned? There  is  an  overwhelming  body  of  proof  that 
certain  basal  forms  are  firmly  retained  and  that  the 
whole  theory  of  evolution  from,  a  common  ancestor 
must  be  completely  abandoned.  Certainly  the  mar- 
supials have  had  time  and  opportunity  for  the  full 
development  of  their  maximum  evolutional  capacity. 
Why,  then,  through  all  these  millions  of  years,  have 
the  limits  to  such  evolutional  capacity  been  so  sharply 
defined? 

Professor  Osborn  will  scarcely  argue  that  the  vari- 
ous continents  could  have  had  their  own  animals  and 
plants  from  the  beginning.     Even  the  present  conti- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  257 

nents  did  not  always  exist.     How,  otherwise,  could 
marine  creatures  be  found  in  the  Alpine  strata? 

Effect  of  Misinformation 

Entirely  apart  from  the  scientific  mystery  of  the 
origin  of  life,  the  theory  of  evolution  is  so  full  of 
enigmas  which  elude  explanation  and  so  full  of  con- 
tradictions which  sweep  it  out  of  reason  that  little 
remains  of  it  but  catchwords. 

Professor  Osborn,  who  has  no  conception  of  the  gen- 
eral law  which  has  governed  the  unceasing  transforma- 
tion of  organic  life  from  its  beginning  on  the  earth  to 
the  present  day,  says  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man  is  in- 
spiring and  uplifting  because  it  is  truth. 

But  one  of  his  followers,  by  whom  it  is  admitted 
he  is  not  bound,  but  who  nevertheless  derives  his  in- 
spiration from  the  Hall  of  the  Age  of  Man,  writes  to 
the  editor  of  the  New  York  Globe  in  defense  of  that 
Hall  as  follows:  "We  don't  want  Jehovah  and  his 
creations  brought  down  from  the  attic,  where  even 
ecclesiastics  are  content  for  the  most  part  to  leave 
them.,,  Ecclesiastics  are  men,  not  angels,  possessing 
their  share  of  human  infirmities,  but,  however  lacking 
in  the  burning  zeal  of  Francis  of  Assisi,  they  have  not 
yet  announced  any  God-in-the-attic  idea. 

Another  writes:  "McCann  is  attacking  the  laws  of 
evolution  as  a  defense  of  the  teachings  of  the  Catholic 
Church  against  evolution."  Note  the  phrase,  "the 
laws  of  evolution."  Note  the  phrase,  "the  Catholic 
Church." 

Another  writes:  "It  is  astonishing  that  McCann 
should  attack  science,  by  challenging  the  accepted 
opinions  of  the  day." 

These  astonishing  expressions  of  public  opinion  elo- 
quently disclose  the  extent  of  the  misinformation  and 


258  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

confusion  under  which  the  general  public  groans  in  its 
attitude  toward  the  thing  it  calls  ' '  Darwinism. ' '  In 
the  first  place  the  Catholic  Church  does  not  attack  the 
theory  of  evolution  nor  does  the  writer  attack  science. 
When  opinions,  feebly  supported  or  not  supported  at 
all,  are  paraded  as  "the  crystallized  conclusion  of  sci- 
ence/'  or  when  they  are  given  such  histrionic  emphasis 
as  to  make  them  appear  authoritative  they  themselves 
constitute  abuses  of  science,  attacks  upon  science. 

As  regards  the  Catholic  Church,  every  Catholic  is  as 
free  as  the  wind  to  follow  scientific  facts  wherever  they 
may  lead,  either  into  evolution  or  out  of  it.  Pope  Leo 
XIII.,  in  his  Encyclical  "Aeterni  Patois,"  August  4, 
1879,  clearly  defined  the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church 
toward  evolution:  "We  declare  that  every  wise 
thought  and  every  useful  discovery,  wherever  it  may 
come  from,  should  be  gladly  and  gratef vlly  welcomed. ' ' 


CHAPTER  XXI 

St.  Augustine;  St.  Thomas 

St.   Augustine;    St.    Thomas — Science   and    romance — Osborn's   opinions 
disregarded. 

It  may  startle  the  average  individual  to  learn  that 
out  of  the  Catholic  Church  itself  came  the  idea  of 
evolution — not  during  the  last  century  of  Darwin, 
Haeckel,  Huxley,  Spencer,  etc.,  but  fourteen  centuries 
ago.  Evolution  was  broadly  discussed  by  St.  Augustine. 
Robert  Kane,  a  Catholic  priest,  in  his  "God  or  Chaos, " 
pp.  170-171,  outlines  the  principles  of  evolution  as  ad- 
vanced by  St.  Augustine  when  the  Catholic  Church 
was  less  than  600  years  old.  All  things  at  first  existed 
only  as  Semina  Rarum  (the  seeds  of  what  was  to  be). 
There  was  at  first  in  things  only  the  potency  of  what, 
under  the  action  and  reaction  of  strong  or  slow  forces, 
they  should  become. 

During  days  which  were  epochs  of  unmeasured 
duration  and  of  cumulative  result  the  Molder  of  the 
world  worked  merely  through  natural  elements  and 
uniform  laws  until  the  universe  crystallized  into  order. 
Man's  spiritual  soul  wras  not  made  of  mere  mud  nor 
begotten  by  an  ape,  but  was  created  by  the  immediate 
power  of  God. 

In  "Modern  Biology,' '  p.  274,  the  foremost  Euro- 
pean authority  on  ants,  Erich  Wasmann,  a  Catholic 
priest,  writes:  "Even  to  St.  Augustine  it  seemed  a 
more  exalted  conception,  and  one  more  in  keeping 
with  the  omnipotence  and  wisdom  of  an  infinite  Crea 

259 


260  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tor,  to  believe  that  God  created  matter  by  one  act  of 
creation  and  then  allowed  the  whole  universe  to  de- 
velop automatically  by  means  of  the  laws  which  He 
imposed  upon  the  nature  of  matter. 

"God  does  not  interfere  directly  with  the  natural 
order  when  He  can  work  by  natural  causes:  this  is  a 
fundamental  principle  in  the  Christian  account  of 
nature  and  was  enunciated  by  the  great  theologian 
Suarez,  whilst  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  plainly  suggested 
it  long  before,  when  he  regarded  it  as  a  testimony  of 
the  greatness  of  God's  power,  that  His  providence 
accomplishes  its  aims  in  nature  not  directly,  but  by 
means  of  created  causes.' ' 

Another  Catholic  priest,  Joseph  Hussline,  in  his 
" Evolution  and  Social  Progress/ '  says,  p.  97:  "It  is, 
therefore,  an  old  theory  within  the  Church  that  the 
act  of  creation  took  place  at  once  and  that  what  fol- 
lowed was  but  an  evolution  according  to  the  laws  that 
God  had  given.' ' 

Still  another  Catholic  priest,  Ernest  R.  Hull,  inter- 
preting this  old  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  toward 
evolution,  as  conceived  by  St.  Augustine,  says:  "He 
(Augustine)  says  that  while  the  original  act  of  creation 
was  direct  and  simultaneous,  the  subsequent  formation 
was  gradual  and  progressive.  He  tells  us  distinctly 
that  animals  and  plants  were  produced,  not  as  they 
appear  now,  but  virtually  in  germ,  and  that  the  Creator 
gave  to  the  earth  the  power  of  evolving  from  itself, 
by  the  operation  of  natural  laws,  the  various  forms 
of  animal  or  vegetable  life.  His  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject, in  fact,  reads  like  the  anticipation  of  a  modern 
scientific  treatise.' ' 

Ernst  Haeckel,  "The  Origin  of  Life,"  American 
edition,  1904,  p.  349,  suggests  that  St.  Augustine  got 
his  ideas  of  evolution  indirectly  through  Aristotle  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  saint  could  see  for  himself 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  261 

that  living  maggots  sprang  from  rotten  meat.  Of 
course  Aristotle  believed  that  lower  organisms  could 
arise  from  the  dead  remains  of  higher  organisms,  such 
as  fleas  from  manure,  lice  from  morbid  postules  in  the 
skin,  moths  from  old  furs  and  mussels  from  slime  in 
the  water. 

As  Aristotle  was  authority  for  such  ancient  tales,  St. 
Augustine  had  to  reckon  with  them,  on  which  account 
1  '  they  were  believed  by  the  other  fathers  and  recon- 
ciled with  the  faith' '  until  the  Abbe  Spallanzani  and 
Louis  Pasteur  demonstrated,  in  tL3  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries,  that  ell  these  living  creatures 
arose  from  eggs  deposited  by  females  of  their  kind  on 
rotten  meat,  dung,  skin,  fur,  slime,  etc.,  and  that  spon- 
taneous generation  is  a  myth. 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  the  assertion  that  the  Catholic 
Church  was  opposed  to  evolution,  remarked:  "In  the 
institution  of  nature  we  do  not  look  for  miracles,  but 
for  the  laws  of  nature.  As  regards  the  apparent  di- 
vision of  the  creation  process  into  several  parts,  and 
the  picture  of  God  issuing  successive  edicts  to  bring 
successive  events  about,  the  creation  is  presented  to  us 
as  though  it  took  place  in  separate  sequence,  yet  it 
really  took  place  at  once.  For  in  it  were  now  made, 
as  in  the  roots  of  time,  those  things  which  were  after- 
ward to  be  produced  in  the  course  of  time. ' ' 

Sir  Bertram  Windle  says  in  his  "A  Century  of  Sci- 
entific Thought,' '  p.  8:  "The  language  of  Peter  Lom- 
bard and  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  makes  it  clear  that 
the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  is  quite  consonant  with 
any  reasonable  theory  of  evolution — nay,  it  is  broad 
and  comprehensive  enough  to  provide  not  only  for 
whatever  limited  degree  of  evolution  is  yet  fairly 
established,  but  even  for  anything  that  has  even  a 
remote  probability  of  being  proven  in  the  future.' 


262  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  Catholic  Encyclopedia  fully  defines  the  attitude 
of  the  Church  with  respect  to  evolution  in  the  following 
words :  "  In  what  particular  manner  the  plant  and  ani- 
mal kingdoms  received  their  existence,  whether  all 
species  were  created  simultaneously  or  a  few  only, 
which  were  destined  to  give  life  to  others;  whether 
only  one  fruitful  seed  was  placed  in  Mother  Earth, 
which  under  the  influence  of  natural  causes  developed 
into  the  first  plants,  and  another  infused  into  the 
waters  gave  birth  to  the  first  animals — all  this  the 
Book  of  Genesis  leaves  to  our  own  investigation  and 
to  the  revelations  of  science,  if  indeed  science  is  able 
to  give  a  final  and  unquestionable  decision. 

"Whether  with  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Thomas  one 
hold  that  only  the  primordial  elements,  endowed  with 
dispositions  and  powers  for  development,  were  created 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  and  the  rest  of  nature 
— plant  and  animal  life — was  gradually  evolved  ac- 
cording to  a  fixed  order  of  natural  operation,  under 
the  supreme  guidance  of  the  Divine  Administration; 
or  whether  with  other  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  school 
one  hold  that  life  and  the  classes  of  living  beings — 
orders,  families,  genera,  species — were  each  and  all  or 
only  some  few  strictly  and  immediately  created  by 
God;  whichever  of  these  extreme  views  he  may  deem 
more  rational  and  better  motived,  the  Catholic  thinker 
is  left  perfectly  free  by  his  faith  to  select." 

Science  and  Romance 

Obviously  the  writer's  articles  were  not  inspired  by 
any  hostile  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  toward  the 
theory  of  evolution  where  no  such  hostility  exists.  It 
would  be  quite  as  consistent  to  say  they  were  inspired 
by  the  attitude  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  simple 
fact  is  that  they  were  inspired  by  the  unscientific  and 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  /.'.   Sanborn. 

Natural  walking1  posture  of  chimpanzee  similar  to  that 
of  gorilla.  Note  dog-like  profile  of  face,  which, 
when  examined  from  "  unfavorable '  I  angle,  is  Been 
to  lose  all  resemblance  to  human   head  and   fl 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  263 

extraordinarily  elaborate  misuse  of  fancy  and  imagi- 
nation in  the  reconstruction  of  mythical  creatures,  held 
forth  in  the  name  of  truth,  science  and  education,  afi 
discoveries  of  palaeontologists,  geologists,  anthropolo- 
gists and  zoologists. 

Science  has  nothing  to  do  with  fancy  or  imagination. 
Poetry  and  science  are  not  synonymous.  Science  deals 
with  facts  known  to  be  facts,  and  not  with  opinions 
supported  by  conjecture,  speculation,  assumptions, 
presumptions  or  theoretical  connecting  links,  such  as 
the  three  ape-man  busts  of  Osborn,  the  reproductions 
of  which  now  grace  so  many  text  books  on  zoology  and 
biology. 

To  attack  science,  the  calm,  the  immutable,  the  exact, 
is  one  thing — the  work  of  a  fanatic  or  an  irrational 
being.  To  attack  an  abuse  of  men  claiming  to  repre- 
sent science  is  not  only  a  privilege  but  a  duty,  and  he 
who  shirks  it  through  fear  of  criticism  or  through 
dread  of  precipitating  a  controversy  in  which  he  him- 
self may  lose  prestige  is  no  lover  of  truth.  Rather 
does  he  love  comfort  more. 

Whatsoever  soundness  Professor  Osborn  mav  claim 
for  his  opinions  concerning  man's  ape-origin,  he  can 
claim  no  soundness  at  all  for  his  opinions  that  wild 
seals,  if  left  alone  by  man,  would  exterminate  them- 
selves as  a  result  of  the  "fighting  of  the  bulls  for  the 
females,  in  which  fights  the  females  and  the  pups  would 
be  killed." 

Fur-sealing  in  Alaskan  and  British  waters  had  suf- 
fered for  many  years  because  of  the  decimation  of 
the  herds  through  indiscriminate  killing.  When  the 
United  States  acquired  Alaska  from  Russia  the  seal 
herds  were  estimated  to  contain  2,500,000  animals. 
Then,  through  wanton  slaughter,  the  herds  so  declined 
as  to  threaten  them  with  extinction.  By  1911  the  sit- 
uation had  become  so  serious  that  the  necessity  of 


264  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

establishing  a  " closed  season"  making  the  killing  of 
the  seals  illegal,  was  perceived  by  Congress.  An  in- 
vestigation resulted.  While  this  investigation  was  in 
progress,  January  22,  1912,  Professor  Osborn  gave  to 
the  House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  so  much 
astounding  information,  in  the  name  of  " science,' ' 
that  even  the  committee  itself  attempted  to  suppress 
the  professor's  communications  after  they  had  been 
read  by  the  Honorable  William  Sulzer  in  an  executive 
session. 

However,  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee  (Mr. 
Goodwin)  openly  discussed  the  Osborn  statements  with 
the  result  that  their  publication  was  forced  at  the 
hearings,  May,  June  and  July,  1912,  before  the  House 
Committee  on  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of 
Commerce  and  Labor. 

Thus  was  developed  the  fact  that  on  the  letterhead 
of  the  New  York  Zoological  Society  and  again  on  the 
letterhead  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  His- 
tory, Office  of  the  President,  Professor  Osborn  wrote 
to  William  Sulzer,  chairman,  House  Committee  on  For- 
eign Affairs,  characterizing  as  "vicious"  the  proposal 
of  Congress  to  put  a  closed  season  on  male  seals. 
"This,"  he  declared,  "will  certainly  lead  to  the  com- 
plete extermination  of  the  seal.  I  understand  it  was 
proposed  by  Mr.  Elliot  (Henry  W.),  who  has  no  stand- 
ing in  this  country  as  a  zoologist,  and  believe  is  sup- 
ported by  my  friend  Dr.  Hornaday,  who,  I  regret  to 
say,  has  come  under  the  influence  of  Mr.  Elliot.  Dr. 
Hornaday 's  position  does  not  in  any  way  represent  the 
judgment  of  the  New  York  Zoological  Society.  All  the 
zoologists  of  note  in  this  country,  all  the  scientific  ex- 
perts whose  opinions  are  worthy  of  consideration,  all 
the  trained  experts  who  have  made  a  special  study  of 
the  fur  seal  problem,  all  naturalists  who  understand 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  265 

that  an  excess  of  males  is  fatal  to  both  the  females  and 
the  young,  are  opposed  to  the  closed  season." 

That  Professor  Osborn  was  desirous  of  aiding  the 
pelagic  sealers  to  get  as  many  seal-skins  as  they  could 
would  be  a  harsh  inference,  although  he  certainly 
sought  to  enable  them  to  go  on  killing. 

"I  have  given  this  matter  very  prolonged  study,"  he 
wrote,  "and  I  regret  to  say  that  your  committee  has 
been  given  a  great  amount  of  misinformation  under  the 
guise  of  sentiment  for  the  protection  of  these  animals. 
My  opinion  is  identical  (with  the  exception  of  my 
friend,  Dr.  Hornaday)  with  that  of  all  the  leading  zool- 
ogists and  mammalogists  of  rank  in  the  United  States. ' 

To  this  communication,  signed  as  "president  of  the 
New  York  Zoological  Society, ' '  he  added  another  signe<  1 
as  "president  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  His- 
tory," in  which  he  said:  "I  have  been  securing  the 
advice  of  the  expert  zoologists  of  this  institution,  espe- 
cially of  Dr.  Frederic  A.  Lucas,  who  is  a  trained  au- 
thority on  the  fur  seal  question.  I  desire  to  protest 
against  the  State  Department's  closed  season  on  male 
seals.  This  would  exterminate  the  great  seal  herd  of 
the  United  States  and  is  founded  upon  ignorance  of  the 
first  principles  of  breeding." 

Called  as  a  witness,  Dr.  Lucas  was  sworn,  Thursday, 
May  16,  1912.  He  denied  that  Professor  Osborn,  as 
declared  by  the  latter,  had  consulted  with  him  or  asked 
his  advice.  He  testified  he  knew  nothing  of  the  Osborn 
letter  until  after  it  was  written.  Asked  how  Professor 
Osborn  got  the  impression  that  the  seals  would  be  ex- 
terminated by  their  own  bulls  unless  the  sealers  were 
permitted  to  kill  them,  Dr.  Lucas  testified:  "I  do  not 
know.  You  will  find  all  my  publications  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  that." 

Mr.  Elliot :  "So  you  will  not  be  responsible  for  what 
Dr.  Osborn  says?" 


266  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Dr.  Lucas :    ' '  Not  in  this  case ;  certainly  not. ' ' 

Mr.  Elliot:  "You  don't  believe  they  would  exter- 
minate themselves  if  left  alone,  do  you?" 

Dr.  Lucas:    "No." 

Mr.  Patton:  "You  don't  believe  they  would  do  as 
well  as  if  there  was  killing  going  on  there,  rightly  con- 
trolled, do  you?" 

"Dr.  Lucas:  "No;  neither  do  I  believe  that  they 
would  be  exterminated  if  left  alone."  (Dr.  Lucas  is 
the  Director  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  His- 
tory and  the  author  of  "Animals  of  the  Past,"  pub- 
lished at  the  Museum.) 

Dr.  Charles  Haskin  Townsend,  Director  of  the  New 
York  Aquarium,  called  as  a  witness,  was  sworn.  He 
testified  that  he  was  not  responsible  for  the  writings  of 
Henry  Fairfield  Osborn,  President  of  the  New  York 
Zoological  Society,  by  which  he  meant  he  was  not  re- 
sponsible for  the  writings  of  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn, 
president  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 
of  which  institution  Dr.  Lucas  is  director. 

The  whole  story  of  the  charges  concerning  the  faking 
of  charts,  the  attempt  to  discredit  scientific  witnesses 
and  the  manufacture  of  data  designed  to  create  false 
impressions  is  fully  covered  by  the  U.  S.  Government 
report  of  the  hearings,  pages  705-796,  and  897-1013. 

Osborn 's  Opinions  Disregarded 

Professor  Osborn 's  opinions  were  disregarded  and 
the  closed  season  was  established  August  15,  1912,  for 
five  years.  Instead  of  the  bulls  fighting  among  them- 
selves, killing  the  females  and  pups  and  exterminating 
the  herd,  according  to  Professor  Osborn 's  scientific 
convictions,  the  herd  increased  from  220,000  seals  of 
all  classes  in  1913  to  more  than  1,000,000  seals  of  all 
classes  in  1921.    Obviously  opinions  concerning  scien- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  267 

tific  facts  observable  under  one's  very  eyes,  could  not 
be  discredited  in  such  extraordinary  fashion  as  Pro- 
fessor Osborn's  opinons  have  been  discredited  without 
weakening  the  value  of  his  opinions  concerning  what 
went  on  in  the  mists  and  shadows  500,000  years 
ago. 

The  seals  are  here  now,  in  the  water.  The  "closed 
season' '  has  come  to  an  end.  Slaughter  has  resumed. 
Their  habits  of  life,  their  conduct  under  natural  and 
artificial  conditions,  their  fur,  their  flesh,  their  blood 
and  bones,  as  well  as  the  living  animals  themselves,  are 
on  exhibition  for  the  benefit  of  the  scientific  observer 
as  they  were  ten  years  ago.  With  all  this  evidence  to 
assist  him  in  the  formulation  of  a  correct  opinion,  Pro- 
fessor Osborn  was  dismally  and  abysmally  wrong.  Yet 
back  there  500,000  years  ago,  with  not  a  solitary  fossil 
relic  of  any  kind  to  aid  him,  he  remains  sublimely  cer- 
tain of  the  scientific  accuracy  of  his  opinio n  that  man 
has  descended  from  an  ape  of  which  there  is  no  living 
type  or  fossil  remains  in  existence. 

Professor  Osborn,  if  he  told  the  truth  when  he  de- 
clared "all  the  zoologists  in  this  country,  all  the  zool- 
ogists and  mammalogists  of  rank,  all  the  scientific  ex- 
perts whose  opinions  are  worthy  of  consideration,  all 
the  trained  experts,  etc.,"  has  not  only  indicted  the 
value  of  his  own  opinion  but  he  has  also  indicted  "all 
the  zoologists  in  this  country  (sic),  all  the  zoologists 
and  mammalogists  of  rank  (sic),  all  the  trained  ex- 
perts, etc."  If  they  were  all  wrong  in  this  very  modern, 
very  up-to-date,  scientific  matter  what  can  be  said  of 
their  opinions  in  matters  extending  beyond  the  reach 
of  human  vision? 

No  wonder  William  Jennings  Bryan,  July,  1921,  pro- 
tested vehemently  against  the  teaching  of  "Darwin 
ism"  in  the  schools  and  colleges,  not  only  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  wholly  unscientific,  not  only  because  of  lack 


268  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

of  proof,  but  because  of  overwhelming  proof  to  the  con- 
trary, but  furthermore  because  it  was  degrading  in  the 
worst  sense  to  the  young  men  and  women  who  accepted 
it  as  gospel. 

Professor  Osborn  does  not  know.  Mr.  Bryan  does 
not  know.  St.  Augustine  did  not  know.  Nobody  ever 
knew.  Each  of  us  is  permitted  to  speculate  to  our 
heart's  content  but  none  of  us  may  ask  another  to 
accept  an  inference  as  a  FACT.  St.  Augustine  him- 
self has  no  power  to  command  acceptance  of  his  sug- 
gested theory  of  evolution.  He  had  to  notice  what  to 
him  was  a  ' 'queer' '  phenomenon — the  appearance  of 
maggots  on  rotten  meat.  That  was  indeed  a  FACT 
and  it  seemed  to  him  to  indicate  something  like  the 
spontaneous  generation  of  life.  It  was  a  very  simple 
FACT  but  he  had  no  explanation  for  it  and  might 
have  known  that  he  needed  none.  In  seeking  to  find 
one  he  got  just  as  far  out  of  philosophy  into  science 
as  he  could  possibly  go.  That  he  went  too  far  may  or 
may  not  be  true.  But  this  is  true :  he  did  not  invent 
data  to  "prove"  his  theory. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

Twelve  Earthy  Salts 

Twelve  earthy  salts — The  soulless  THING — The   chemic   creed — Super- 
stition and  intolerance. 

Even  H.  G.  Wells  limits  his  bold  assurances  concern- 
ing man's  origin  to  man's  body.  He  avoids  discussion 
of  the  origin  of  man's  soul,  as  if  the  soul  might  not  be 
mentioned  among  intellectuals  for  fear  of  incurring  the 
charge  of  superstition,  yet  A.  Conan  Doyle,  Sir  Oliver 
Lodge,  and  a  host  of  others  classified  as  intellectuals 
suffer  no  timidity  when,  as  spiritists,  they  proceed  to 
their  demonstrations  of  the  survival  of  the  soul  after 
the  body  and  the  persistence  of  life  beyond  the  here 
into  the  hereafter.  Yet  spontaneous  generation  with 
respect  to  the  origin  of  man's  soul  is  quite  as  unthink- 
able as  spontaneous  generation  with  respect  to  the 
origin  of  his  body,  no  more,  no  less  so. 

Professor  Plate  clung  to  the  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation  on  the  ground  that  there  were  some  twelve 
earthy  salts  found  in  the  living  organism,  and  that  the 
living  organism  after  death  always  returned  to  these 
twelve  earthy  salts. 

This  is  the  definite  connection  between  lifeless  matter 
and  life  upon  which  the  theory  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion, bursting  from  a  "chemiolump,"  is  based. 

If  the  living  body,  after  death,  is  reduced  to  these 
twelve  earthy  salts,  it  certainly  does  follow  that  it  was 
composed  of  them,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  cawr 
into  existence  out  of  them  spontaneously.    Otherwise  a 

269 


270  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ship  which  is  wrecked  and  broken  up  into  firewood 
should  have  no  orderly  design  or  efficient  workmanship 
behind  it,  but  rather  should  have  sprung  into  existence 
automatically  out  of  a  lumber  pile. 

On  the  brazen  assumption  that  the  act  of  creation, 
on  which  have  been  imposed  inexorable  laws  by  a  law- 
giver, is  at  war  with  evolution,  although  all  that  science 
reveals  concerning  the  latter  and  all  that  philosophy 
reveals  concerning  the  former  harmonize  and  complete 
each  other,  Wells,  devoting  103  pages  to  the  descent  of 
man's  body  from  the  ape,  is  compelled  to  avoid  even 
the  mention  of  the  spiritual  essence  that  distinguishes 
men  from  apes  and  all  other  animals. 

Because  this  spiritual  essence  IS  recognized,  and 
because  materialistic  evolutionists  ARE  compelled  to 
reckon  with  it,  they  have  coined  all  sorts  of  names  for 
use  in  avoiding  the  stumbling  block  always  presented 
when  the  word  ' ' soul' '  is  employed.  They  call  it ' ' sen- 
sation,' '  " perception,"  "imagination,"  "mental  equip- 
ment," "mind  as  the  inner  side  of  the  brain  and  brain 
as  the  outer  side  of  the  mind,"  and  so  on. 

The  Soulless  THING ! 

Confronting  the  phenomenon  of  free  will,  they  are 
obliged  either  to  admit  the  existence  of  the  soul  or  to 
deny  free  will  entirely.  They  argue  thai:  psychical 
energy  is  merely  mechanical  energy  and  thoughts  are 
nothing  more  than  the  movement  of  atoms.  It  is  futile, 
therefore,  to  struggle  against  crime  on  the  ground  that 
the  exercise  of  free  will,  which  doesn't  exist,  can  make 
choice  between  good  and  evil.  There  is  no  good  or  evil, 
they  say,  but  whatever  they  say  there  is  much  evidence 
to  prove  that  the  idea  of  the  futility  of  struggle  against 
crime  flows  naturally  out  of  contempt  for  the  soul  and 
free  will. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  271 

If  man  regards  himself  as  nothing  more  than  a  highly 
developed  ape  and  is  convinced  that  he  must  inevitably 
yield  to  the  impulses  inherited  from  the  ape,  however 
gross,  it  is  not  difficult  for  him  to  find  comfortable  justi- 
fication for  any  act  or  any  crime  that  he  can  commit 
without  discovery.  Refusing  to  discuss  his  own  soul 
and  holding  in  contempt  his  own  free  will,  he  must  ac- 
cept the  theory  of  evolution  without  God  rather  than 
of  evolution  with  God.  Do  we  not  witness  the  spectacle 
of  Haeckel,  teacher  of  H.  G.  Wells,  describing  God  as  a 
"  gaseous  vertebrate?"  Do  we  not  hear  the  echoes  of 
the  voice  of  Professor  Knight,  cooperating  with  Pro- 
fessor Osborn,  under  the  latter's  direction,  as,  pointing 
to  the  primeval  shagginess  of  this  apish  creature,  he 
cries  out:  "This  is  our  ancestor;  this  is  the  creature 
from  which  we  evolved;  this  THING  is  bone  of  our 
bone,  flesh  of  our  flesh.  We  are  stirred  by  HIS  pas- 
sions, urged  on  by  HIS  nameless  instincts ! ' ' 

It  follows,  of  course,  that  a  "gaseous  vertebrate' 
could  not  and  did  not  endow  man  with  soul  and  free 
will  and  that  such  a  THING  as  this  could  have  no  soul 
or  free  will.  Man  has  existence,  hence  there  is  some- 
thing which  has  brought  him  into  existence.  Reason 
compels  him  to  affirm  the  existence  of  God  as  his  origin 
or  to  accept  the  contradiction  involved  in  the  disproved 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation,  the  chemic-lump,  the 
apish  THING. 

Of  course  if  there  is  no  God,  and  no  soul,  and  no  free 
will,  and  nothing  but  a  monkeyfied  descent  from  the 
lemur,  then  it  follows  that  conscience  itself  is  a  mere 
movement  of  atoms;  that  it  cannot  hold  in  check  man's 
greed  or  his  lust,  his  passions  or  his  nameless  instincts. 

By  whom  can  a  soulless  man,  a  THING  evolved  from 
an  ape,  be  held  accountable?  For  what  law,  excepi  tin- 
law  of  fear,  shall  this  soulless  THING  have  respeel  .' 
Without  free  will  the  gratifications  of  his  every  impulse 


272  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

becomes  his  only  objective.  There  are  no  laws  that, 
in  conscience,  he,  who  is  without  conscience,  must  heed. 
This  THING  without  soul,  the  prince  of  brute  creation, 
is  himself  a  brute,  and  the  moral  order  ends. 

Preaching  this  doctrine,  the  materialistic  evolution- 
ists, falsifying  their  unscientific  deductions  and  mis- 
representing the  honest  research  of  the  laboratories, 
have  so  influenced  popular  education,  including  the 
text-books  of  schools  and  the  formation  of  public 
thought  through  the  press,  that  there  is  left  scarcely 
any  channel  of  public  information  through  which  does 
not  flow  the  false  conviction  that  man's  origin  as  a 
descendant  of  the  ape  has  been  "  scientifically  demon- 
strated. ' ' 

Haeckel,  so  frequently  invoked  by  Wells  without  quo- 
tation marks,  wrote  with  the  same  positiveness  char- 
acteristic of  Wells  and  on  the  same  subject.  He  said, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  "Weltratsel,"  p.  99:  "In  the  last 
twenty  years  a  considerable  number  of  well-preserved 
fossil  skeletons  of  men-apes  and  other  apes  have  been 
discovered,  and  amongst  them  are  all  the  important 
intermediate  forms  which  constitute  a  series  of  an- 
cestors connecting  the  oldest  anthropoid  ape  with 
man." 

There  wasn't  a  single  word  of  truth  in  this  gratuitous 
and  wholly  false  declaration,  yet,  as  we  have  also  seen, 
teachers  and  writers  have  swallowed  it  as  if  it  were 
truth,  and  passed  on  its  influence,  just  as  Wells  has 
done,  so  that  the  plain  people,  submitting  to  the  brute 
force  exerted  by  this  faked  doctrine  of  evolution,  can- 
not fail  to  attach  themselves  to  the  doctrine  of  chaos, 
in  proportion  as  they  accept  it. 

If  a  man  is  a  brute,  a  THING,  whose  origin  and  des- 
tiny are  twelve  earthy  salts,  why  should  he  not  live  like 
a  brute?  Enrico  Ferri,  in  his  "Criminal  Sociology," 
declares  man  cannot  be  responsible  for  his  crimes  for 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  273 

the  reason  that  those  human  acts  which  are  believed  to 
be  more  free  morally,  such  as  marriage,  suicides,  crim 
or  emigrations,  are,  on  the  contrary,  subject  to  the  in- 
fluences of  environment  and  vary  with  these  influences. 
If  our  heredity  be  healthy  and  our  environment  com- 
fortable, we  must  act  well,  we  cannot  help  it;  if  it  be 
ill,  we  must  act  ill ;  we  cannot  help  it.  We  are  THINGS ! 
apish  THINGS ! 

The  Chemic  Creed 

Was  not  this  the  inspiration  that  caused  Robert 
Blatchford  to  say:  "Suppose  a  tramp  has  murdered  a 
child  on  the  highway,  has  robbed  her  of  a  few  coppers 
and  has  thrown  her  body  into  a  ditch.  Do  you  mean 
to  say  that  tramp  could  not  help  doing  that?  Do  you 
mean  he  is  not  to  blame — not  to  be  punished!  Yes,  I 
mean  to  say  all  these  things,  and  if  all  these  things  are 
not  true  this  book  is  not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written 
on." 

Joseph  Husslein,  in  "Evolution  and  Social  Prog- 
ress,' '  concludes  that  "Haeckel  is  right  in  denying  free 
will  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe  but  matter  and 
force,  and  equally  right  is  Blatchford  when  he  draws 
from  that  supposition  the  inescapable  conclusion  thai 
no  criminal,  no  matter  how  vile  and  abhorrent  his  deeds, 
should  ever  be  judged  because  of  them. ' ' 

This  new  "chemic  creed,"  that  out  of  the  lowest  clod 
man  has  developed  in  common  with  the  toad  and  the 
cockroach,  through  the  power  of  material  evolution, 
free  from  the  intervention  of  a  God,  rests  squarely  on 
a  foundation  compounded  of  the  romance,  invention  and 
intervention  of  theorists  who  have  been  caught  in  the 
act  of  forging  proof,  of  faking  plates,  of  lying  in  the 
name  of  "science"  in  order  to  fool  the  gullible  who 


274  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

haven't  time  or  training  sufficient  to  examine  the  facts 
for  themselves. 

H.  G.  Wells,  adding  his  brilliant  contribution  to  the 
literature  of  gross  materialism,  was  unable  to  protect 
himself  from  the  trickery  and  subterfuge  of  Haeckel. 
How,  then,  can  the  average  man  or  woman  be  expected 
to  separate  the  true  from  the  false? 

One  of  the  writer's  assistants,  a  university  graduate, 
a  trained  and  a  capable  chemist  who  has  been  working 
with  the  writer  for  five  years  in  The  Globe  Laboratory, 
and  who  is  often  at  the  writer's  elbow,  says:  "But 
there's  always  Darwinism,  Darwinism,  Darwinism. 
How  can  you  get  away  from  the  facts  of  Darwin- 
ism!" Even  he,  a  man  of  scientific  education,  has  ac- 
cepted the  Haeckel  falsehoods  concerning  Darwin  on 
the  assumption  that  one  scientist  wouldn't  lie  to  an- 
other, the  same  assumption  which  Wells  may  have 
acted  upon  in  accepting  Haeckel  without  question. 

Perhaps  no  other  subject  has  given  rise  to  so  much 
fiery  controversy  as  this  bold  and  sinister  attempt  to 
induce  man  to  believe  that  not  only  is  he  a  descendant 
of  the  ape,  but  that  he  is  himself  a  true  ape. 

Leaping  to  their  rash  conclusions,  the  followers  of 
this  theory  neither  act  nor  speak  like  scientists.  They 
demand  that  their  theories  shall  be  accepted  on  their 
word.  If  this  is  not  intellectual  tyranny,  the  autocracy 
of  falsehood,  the  sovereign  reign  of  deceit,  what  is  it? 
And  if  it  is  this,  why  should  Wells  devote  to  it  103  pages 
of  his  " Outline  of  History?" 

Science  admits  that  it  can  find  no  cause  of  life  exist- 
ing upon  this  earth.  Philosophy  interrupts  to  remind 
science  that  the  cause  of  life  is  not  a  scientific  question, 
but  a  philosophical  one,  and  that  the  cause  of  life  must 
be  looked  for  outside  the  earth.  The  creation  of  matter, 
the  creation  of  life  and  the  creation  of  the  mind  of  man, 
of  his  intelligent  soul,  are  not  zoological  problems. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  275 

Superstition  and  Intolerance 

"The  birth ,  both  of  the  species  and  of  the  individual, 
are  equally  parts  of  that  grand  sequence  of  events 
which  our  minds  refuse  to  accept  as  the  result  of  blind 
chance."  It  may  shock  the  atheistic  reader  who  swal- 
lows the  lemur  story  of  the  ape  origin  of  man,  as  told 
by  Wells,  to  learn  who  wrote  that.  Its  author  was  none 
other  than  Charles  Darwin.  You  will  find  it  on  p.  613 
in  Darwin's  "The  Descent  of  Man,"  1896  edition,  pub- 
lished by  Appleton. 

Followers  of  Haeckel  and  Wells  have  written  the 
editor  of  the  New  York  Globe  denouncing  as  sheer 
superstition  the  writer's  critical  comments  on  the  work 
of  their  idols.  If  it  be  superstition  to  accept  as  "veri- 
fied facts"  the  ever-changing,  ever-contradicting 
theories  of  materialistic  evolution  which  during  the 
past  sixty  years  have  already  gone  through  a  dozen 
changes,  each  of  them  equally  dictatorial,  equally  in- 
tolerant, in  its  assurance  of  finality,  then  the  writer 
pleads  guilty  to  the  charge. 

Man's  thoughts  can't  be  put  into  a  test  tube,  yet  the 
writer  has  reason  for  believing  he  has  thoughts.  Man 's 
soul  can't  be  put  under  the  microscope,  yet  the  writer 
has  reason  for  believing  he  has  a  soul.  Wells  wholly 
ignores  the  soul.  To  do  otherwise  would  make  it  nec- 
essary to  re-write  the  ' '  Outline  of  History. ' ' 

On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  doctrine,  God  is  a  "gas- 
eous vertebrate,"  man  is  a  product  of  the  "chemic- 
lump."  The  alternative  of  this,  man  is  a  creature  of 
body  and  soul  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God, 
asks  for  acceptance  or  rejection. 

Wells  accepts  the  former;  countless  millions  aocepl 
the  latter.  Wells  exercises  the  right  to  put  his  conclu- 
sions into  circulation.  Countless  millions  exercise  a 
better  right  to  reject  them. 


276  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Wells'  conclusions  cannot  be  sound,  for  they  are 
based  on  faith  in  the  unreasonable  and  the  false,  and 
their  consequences  obviously  lead  to  chaos.  Wells' 
man  is  without  an  objective,  blindly  sprung  from  blind 
chance,  moving  blindly  toward  a  blinder  end.  Count- 
less millions  are  guilty  of  " superstition"  for  rejecting 
him,  and  the  word  "human"  must  be  dropped  from  the 
language.    There  is  no  "human"  race.    It  is  simian. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

Evolution  Upside  Down 

Evolution  upside  down. 

Of  course  we  know  nothing  of  the  methods  of  crea- 
tion, and  when  we  descend  to  details  the  complexities 
and  confusions  are  found  to  be  so  irreconcilable  with 
the  old  theory  of  monophyletic  evolution  that  human 
reason  is  wholly  unable  to  follow  them.  For  instance 
take  the  case  of  the  dominant  character  transmitted 
under  the  law  of  Mendel  by  the  parent  to  the  offspring 
and  the  recessive  character  which  disappears  under 
that  law.  The  chromosomes  carrying  the  dominant 
color  factor,  height  factor,  form  factor,  etc.,  reassert 
their  influence  in  subsequent  generations  after  a  seem- 
ing suppression  in  the  offspring  of  the  second  genera- 
tion. 

If  round  peas  with  green  albumen  were  mated  with 
wrinkled  peas  with  green  albumen — green  being  com- 
mon to  both — their  hybrid's  progeny  would  consist  of 
three  round  with  green  albumen ;  and,  if  wrinkled  peas 
with  yellow  albumen  were  also  mated  with  wrinkled 
peas  with  green  albumen — wrinkled  being  common  to 
both — their  hybrid's  progeny  would  consist  of  three 
wrinkled  peas  with  yellow  albumen  to  one  wrinkled 
with  green  albumen. 

If  round  peas  with  yellow  albumen  were  mated  with 
wrinkled  peas  with  green  albumen — differing  in  two 
pairs  of  characters — the  offspring  were  all  round  with 
green  albumen.  The  recessive  characters — round  and 
yellow — had  disappeared  in  the  second  generation. 

277 


278  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

But — when  these  offspring  were  bred  from,  in  their 
turn,  their  progeny  consisted  of  four  groups  bearing 
the  characters,  round  and  yellow,  round  and  green, 
wrinkled  and  yellow,  wrinkled  and  green. 

If  rose-combed  fowl  were  mated  with  single-combed 
the  offspring  were  all  rose-combed,  but  when  these  rose- 
combed  fowl  were  mated  the  offspring  were  again  rose- 
combed  and  single-combed. 

If  agouti-colored  mice  were  mated  with  chocolate- 
colored  mice  the  offspring  of  the  third  generation  con- 
sisted of  agoutis,  cinnamon-agoutis,  blacks  and  choco- 
lates. If  one  of  these  blacks  were  mated  with  a  silver- 
fawn  the  offspring  of  the  third  generation  consisted  of 
blacks,  blues,  chocolates  and  silver-fawns,  showing  the 
operation  of  another  pair  of  color  factors  not  reckoned 
with  in  the  beginning. 

If  gray  rabbits  were  mated  with  black  rabbits  their 
hybrids  were  all  gray,  the  black  seemingly  disappear- 
ing, but  when  the  second  generation  of  grays  were 
mated  the  progeny  were  again. grays  and  blacks.  If 
gray  rabbits  were  mated  with  albino  rabbits  the  hy- 
brid's progeny  consisted  of  grays,  blacks  and  albinos 
in  the  third  generation. 

White  cattle  have  been  shown  to  carry  a  hidden 
color  factor,  actually  giving  rise  to  black  and  red  calves. 

Thousands  of  experiments  with  cows,  horses,  sheep, 
hogs,  poultry  and  other  animals  confirm  the  reappear- 
ance of  recessive  characters  seemingly  lost  in  the  sec- 
ond generation  only  to  turn  up  in  the  third. 

Yet,  when  we  come  to  man,  the  contradictions  are 
baffling.  If  the  descent  of  color  in  the  cross  between  the 
negro  and  the  white  man  followed  the  law  of  Mendel, 
the  offspring  of  two  first-cross  mulattoes  would  be  one 
black,  two  mulattoes,  one  white.  But  this  is  notoriously 
not  so.  The  riddle  is  unanswerable  though  some  day 
science  may,  with  further  knowledge  of  the  chromo- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  279 

somes,  throw  light  upon  it.  Worthy  of  expression  is 
the  thought  that  an  ape  chromosome  in  the  human  cell 
would  manifest  even  a  recessive  character  somewhere 
along  the  line  of  countless  millions  of  human  creatures, 
yet  even  the  most  degenerate  savages  are  singularly 
free  from  the  slightest  superficial  resemblance  to  any 
simian  trait  or  character  which  science  has  been  able  to 
identify. 

A  most  astounding  variability  is  everywhere  seen. 
Among  the  moths,  for  instance,  there  is  such  an  abun- 
dance of  varieties  so  distinct  that  they  would  be  classi- 
fied as  specific  forms  but  for  the  fact  that  all  breed 
freely  together.  William  Bateson,  in  his  1914  address 
on  " Heredity,' '  delivered  as  president  of  the  British 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  says  on 
this  point:  "Naturalists  formerly  supposed  that  any  of 
these  varieties  might  be  bred  from  any  of  the  others." 
They  tried  the  experiment  but,  alas,  failed  dismally. 
"Genetic  analysis,"  says  Bateson,  "has  disposed  of  all 
these  mistakes." 

Evolution,  as  the  world  has  been  taught  to  accept  it, 
demands  the  acquisition  of  NEW  CHARACTERS, 
though  science  now  proves  that  if  there  is  any  evolution 
at  all  it  consists  in  the  LOSS  of  old  characters.  Here, 
too,  Bateson  is  a  stumbling  block  to  the  old  school.  Dis- 
missing "the  evolutionists"  who  were  ready  to  believe 
that  any  pair  of  moths  might  produce  any  of  the  va- 
rieties included  in  the  species,  he  says:  "The  appear- 
ance of  contemporary  variability  proves  to  be  an  illu- 
sion. Variation  from  step  to  step  in  the  series  must 
occur  either  by  the  addition  or  by  the  loss  of  a  factor. 
Now,  of  the  origin  of  new  forms  by  loss  there  seems  to 
me  to  be  fairly  clear  evidence,  but  of  the  contemporary 
acquisition  of  any  new  factor  I  see  no  satisfactory 
proof,  though  I  admit  there  are  rare  examples  which 
may  be  so  interpreted. 


280  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

"It  was  a  commonplace  of  evolutionary  theory  that 
at  least  the  domestic  animals  have  been  developed  from 
a  few  wild  types.  Their  origin  was  supposed  to  present 
no  difficulty.  The  various  races  of  fowl,  for  instance, 
all  came  from  the  Indian  jungle  fowl.  So  we  were 
taught ;  but  try  to  reconstruct  the  steps  in  their  evolu- 
tion and  you  realize  your  hopeless  ignorance.  To  be 
sure  there  are  breeds,  such  as  Black-red  Game  and 
Brown  Leghorns,  which  have  the  colors  of  the  jungle 
fowl,  though  they  differ  in  shape  and  other  respects. 
As  we  know  so  little  as  yet  of  the  genetics  of  shape,  let 
us  assume  that  those  transitions  could  be  got  over. 

"  Suppose,  further,  as  is  probable,  that  the  absence 
of  the  maternal  instinct  in  the  Leghorn  is  due  to  loss 
of  one  factor  which  the  jungle  fowl  possesses.  So  far 
we  are  on  fairly  safe  ground.  But  how  about  White 
Leghorns?  Their  origin  may  seem  easy  to  imagine, 
since  white  varieties  have  often  arisen  in  well-authen- 
ticated cases.  But  the  white  of  White  Leghorns  is  not, 
as  white  in  nature  often  is,  due  to  the  loss  of  the  color 
elements,  but  to  the  action  of  something  which  inhibits 
their  expression.  Whence  did  that  something  come? 
The  same  question  may  be  asked  respecting  the  heavy 
breeds,  such  as  Malays  or  Indian  Game.  Each  of  these 
is  a  separate  introduction  from  the  East.  To  suppose 
that  these,  with  their  peculiar  combs  and  close  feather- 
ing, could  have  been  developed  from  pre-existing  Euro- 
pean breeds  is  very  difficult.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  no  wild  species  now  living  any  more  like  them.  We 
may,  of  course,  postulate  that  there  was  once  such  a 
species,  now  lost.  That  is  quite  conceivable,  though 
the  suggestion  is  purely  speculative.  I  might  thus  go 
through  the  list  of  domesticated  animals  and  plants  of 
ancient  origin,  and  again  and  again  we  should  be  driven 
to  this  suggestion,  that  many  of  their  distinctive  char- 
acters must  have  been  derived  from  some  wild  original 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  281 

now  lost.  Indeed,  to  this  unsatisfying  conclusion  al- 
most every  careful  writer  on  such  subjects  is  now  re- 
duced. If  we  turn  to  modern  evidence  the  case  looks 
even  worse.  The  new  breeds  of  domestic  animals  made 
in  recent  times  are  the  carefully  selected  products  of 
recombination  of  pre-existing  breeds.  Most  of  the  new 
varieties  of  cultivated  plants  are  the  outcome  of  delib- 
erate crossing.  There  is  generally  no  doubt  in  the 
matter.  We  have  pretty  full  histories  of  these  crosses 
in  gladiolus,  orchids,  cineraria,  begonia,  calceolaria, 
pelargonium,  etc.  A  very  few  certainly  arise  from  a 
single  origin. 

"The  sweet  pea  is  the  clearest  case,  and  there  are 
others  which  I  should  name  with  hesitation.  The  cy- 
clamen is  one  of  them,  but  we  know  that  efforts  to  cross 
cyclamens  were  made  early  in  the  cultural  history  of 
the  plant,  and  they  may  well  have  been  successful.  Sev- 
eral plants  for  which  single  origins  are  alleged,  such 
as  the  Chinese  primrose,  the  dahlia,  and  tobacco,  came 
to  us  in  an  already  domesticated  state,  and  their  origins 
remain  altogether  mysterious.  Formerly  single  origins 
were  generally  presumed,  but  at  the  present  time  num- 
bers of  the  chief  products  of  domestication,  dogs, 
horses,  cattle,  sheep,  poultry,  wheat,  oats,  rice,  plums, 
cherries,  have  in  turn  been  accepted  as  "poryphyletic' 
or,  in  other  words,  derived  from  several  distinct  forms. 
The  reason  that  has  led  to  these  judgments  is  that  the 
distinctions  between  the  chief  varieties  can  be  traced 
as  far  back  as  the  evidence  reaches,  and  that  these  dis- 
tinctions are  so  great,  so  far  transcending  anything 
that  we  actually  know  variation  capable  of  effecting, 
that  it  seems  pleasanter  to  postpone  the  difficulty,  rele- 
gating the  critical  differentiation  to  some  misty  antiq- 
uity into  which  we  shall  not  be  asked  to  penetrate.  For 
it  need  scarcely  be  said  that  this  is  mere  procrastina- 
tion.   //  the  origin  of  a  form  under  domestication  is 


282  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

hard  to  imagine,  it  becomes  no  easier  to  conceive  of 
such  enormous  deviations  from  type  coming  to  pass  in 
the  wild  state.  Examine  any  two  thoroughly  distinct 
species  which  meet  each  other  in  their  distribution,  as 
for  instance,  Lychnis  diurna  and  vespertina  do.  In 
areas  of  overlap  are  many  intermediate  forms.  These 
used  to  be  taken  to  be  transitional  steps,  and  the  specific 
distinctness  of  vespertina  and  diurna  was  on  that  ac- 
count questioned.  Once  it  is  known  that  these  supposed 
intergrades  are  merely  mongrels  between  the  two 
species  the  transition  from  one  to  the  other  is  practi- 
cally beyond  our  powers  of  imagination  to  conceive.  If 
both  these  can  survive,  why  has  their  common  parent 
perished?  Why,  when  they  cross,  do  they  not  recon- 
struct it  instead  of  producing  partially  sterile  hybrids  ? 
I  take  this  example  to  show  how  entirely  the  facts  were 
formerly  misinterpreted. ' ' 

On  the  matter  of  reconstructing  the  various  stages 
of  evolution  of  any  modern  species,  the  horse,  for  in- 
stance, beginning  with  the  very  small  animal  and  grad- 
ually sifting  out  slightly  larger  forms  until  the  pro- 
gressive series  starting  with  a  creature  the  size  of  a 
squirrel  ends  in  a  full-grown  horse,  Bateson  is  equally 
heretical.  He  says:  ilIn  passing  let  us  note  how  the 
history  of  the  sweet  pea  belies  those  ideas  of  a  contin- 
uous evolution  with  which  we  had  formerly  to  contend. 
The  big  varieties  came  first.  The  little  ones  have  arisen 
later,  as  I  suggest,  by  fractionation.  Presented  ivith  a 
collection  of  modern  sweet  peas,  how  prettily  would  the 
devotees  of  continuity  have  arranged  them  in  a  gradu- 
ated series,  showing  how  every  intergrade  could  be 
found,  passing  from  the  full  color  of  the  wild  Sicilian 
species  in  one  direction  to  white,  in  the  other  to  the 
deep  purple  of  'Black  Princey;  though  happily  we 
know  these  two  to  be  among  the  earliest  to  have  ap- 
peared." 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  283 

Terrific  indeed  are  the  complications  to  be  reconciled 
when  man  seeks  to  penetrate  the  mystery  of  creation, 
yet  as  new  data  are  compiled  the  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem grows  more  and  more  complex  and  all  the  old  pop- 
ular notions  of  a  simple  single  cell  gradually  acquiring 
an  ascending  complexity  have  to  be  abandoned.  Again 
we  must  call  upon  the  analytic  acumen  of  the  most  bril- 
liant apostle  of  evolution  now  living,  to  show  how  rad- 
ically the  old  views,  still  taught  in  our  universities  and 
through  popular  magazines,  have  changed.  Startling 
are  the  words  of  Bateson:  "We  have  to  reverse  our 
habitual  modes  of  thought.  At  first  it  may  seem  rank 
absurdity  to  suppose  that  the  primordial  form  or  forms 
of  protoplasm  could  have  contained  complexity  enough 
to  produce  the  divers  types  of  life.  But  is  it  easier  to 
imagine  that  these  powers  could  have  been  conveyed  by 
extrinsic  additions!  Of  what  nature  could  these  addi- 
tions be? 

"Additions  of  material  cannot  surely  be  in  question. 
We  are  told  that  salts  of  iron  in  the  soil  may  turn  a 
pink  hydrangea  blue.  The  iron  cannot  be  passed  on  to 
the  next  generation.  How  can  the  iron  multiply  itself? 
The  power  to  assimilate  the  iron  is  all  that  can  be  trans- 
mitted. A  disease-producing  organism  like  the  pebrine 
of  silk-worms  can  in  a  verv  few  cases  be  passed  on 
through  the  germ  cells.  Such  an  organism  can  multiply 
and  can  produce  its  characteristic  effects  in  the  next 
generation.  But  it  does  not  become  part  of  the  invaded 
host,  and  we  cannot  conceive  it  taking  part  in  the  geo- 
metrically ordered  processes  of  segregation.  These 
illustrations  may  seem  too  gross;  but  what  refinement 
will  meet  the  requirements  of  the  problem,  that  the 
thing  introduced  must  be,  as  the  living  organism  itself 
is,  capable  of  multiplication  and  of  subordinating  it  self 
in  a  definite  system  of  segregation?  That  which  is  con- 
ferred in  variation  must  rather  itself  be  a  change — not 


284  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

of  material  but  of  arrangement,  or  of  motion.  The  in- 
vocation of  additions  extrinsic  to  the  organism  does 
not  seriously  help  us  to  imagine  how  the  power  to 
change  can  be  conferred,  and  if  it  proves  that  hope  in 
that  direction  must  be  abandoned,  I  think  we  lose  very 
little.  By  the  rearrangement  of  a  very  moderate  num- 
ber of  things  we  soon  reach  a  number  of  possibilities 
practically  infinite. 

' '  That  primordial  life  may  have  been  of  small  dimen- 
sions need  not  disturb  us.  Quantity  is  of  no  account 
in  these  considerations.  Shakespeare  once  existed  as 
a  speck  of  protoplasm  not  so  big  as  a  small  pin's  head. 
To  this  nothing  was  added  that  would  not  equally  well 
have  served  to  build  up  a  baboon  or  a  rat. ' ' 

We  shall  speak  shortly  of  the  artistic  gifts  of  the 
cave  men,  certainly  more  highly  developed  than  the 
artistic  gifts  of  the  average  modern  man.  Why  do  all 
men  not  share  in  these  gifts  ?  Why  do  all  men  not  share 
in  the  mathematical,  the  analytical,  the  philosophical 
gifts  ?  Why  have  all  men  lost  so  much  that  some  out- 
standingly conspicuous  geniuses  possess? 

The  old  Christian  doctrine  is  that  original  sin,  with 
the  blighting  consequences  of  the  fall  of  man,  have 
darkened  his  understanding,  by  clouding  it,  stopping 
it  down,  even  though  in  each  generation  there  rise  to 
the  surface  isolated  leaders  of  art,  philosophy,  inven- 
tion and  all  the  other  peculiarly  human  characters  as  if 
to  remind  man  of  the  riches  he  has  lost  by  his  fall. 

It  is  not  strictly  scientific  to  infer  that  the  taint  of 
original  sin  constitutes  the  suppressing  factor  which 
prevents  the  human  gifts  from  unfolding  in  all  men 
alike.  Yet  Bateson,  who  rejects  all  such  il superstition'' 
and  "mysticism";  who  dismisses  "sin"  as  a  thing  un- 
thinkable, comes  close  to  this  idea.  He  says:  "I  have 
confidence  that  the  artistic  gifts  of  mankind  will  prove 
to  be  due  not  to  something  added  to  the  makeup  of  an 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  U.  Sanborn. 

Excellent  view  of  chimpanzee  countenance  said  to  bear  a  resem- 
blance to  human  face.  Man  miuht  look  like  this  were  it  not 
for  the  soul  which  hundreds  of  millions  of  intelligent  beings 
believe  was  created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  Com- 
pare ear  and  brow  with  ear  and   brow  of  orang 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  285 

ordinary  man  but  to  the  absence  of  factors  which  in  the 
normal  person  inhibit  the  development  of  these  gifts. 
They  are  almost  beyond  doubt  to  be  looked  upon  as  re- 
leases of  powers  normally  suppressed.  The  instrument 
is  there,  but  it  is  i stopped  down.'  "  What  stopped  it 
down? 

On  the  subject  of  man's  origin  in  the  monkey  Bateson 
is  peculiarly  silent,  yet  he  is  very  positive  in  identical 
instances.  Here  are  his  words:  "We  see  no  changes 
in  progress  around  us  in  the  contemporary  world 
which  we  can  imagine  likely  to  culminate  in  the 
evolution  of  forms  distinct  in  the  larger  sense.  By 
intercrossing  dogs,  jackals,  and  wolves  new  forms  of 
these  types  can  be  made,  some  of  which  may  be  species, 
but  I  see  no  reason  to  think  that  from  such  material  a 
fox  could  be  bred  in  indefinite  time  or  that  dogs  could 
be  bred  from  foxes' ' — or  men  from  monkeys! 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

Those  "Six  Days"  of  Creation 

Those  "six  days'  of  creation — The  geological  clocks — The  nebular 
hypothesis — The  evidence  of  light — The  evidence  of  water — The  evi- 
dence of  land — The  evidence  of  plants — The  evidence  of  sun,  moon 
and  stars — The  evidence  of  fish  and  fowl — The  evidence  of  beasts. 

It  has  been  the  fashion  among  certain  higher  critics 
to  focus  an  intense  emphasis  upon  the  Six  Days  of 
creation  as  recorded  by  the  Mosaic  narrative.  They  in- 
sist that  each  day  shall  be  fixed  literally,  mathemat- 
ically and  astronomically  as  a  period  of  twenty-four 
hours  by  the  clock,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
Mosaic  word  for  "day"  means  an  indefinite  cosmic 
period  of  time,  a  while. 

The  scriptural  use  of  the  word  "day"  may  mean  just 
as  much  or  just  as  little  as  any  arbitrary  chronology 
may  demand,  yet  the  parallel  between  the  chronological 
order  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  creation  and  the  most 
advanced  discoveries  of  natural  science  is  so  marvelous 
that  it  inspired  the  great  Ampere  to  observe :  ' '  Either 
Moses  knew  as  much  about  science  as  we,  or  else  he 
was  inspired." 

The  Princeton  biologist,  Edwin  Grant  Conklin,  takes 
issue  with  Thomas  Carlyle  when  the  latter  declared: 
"I  have  known  three  generations  of  Darwins,  atheists 
all." 

' '  The  doctrine  of  evolution, ' '  declares  Conklin  ("  The 
Direction  of  Human  Evolution,"  p.  210),  "neither  af- 
firms nor  denies  the  existence  of  a  God."  He  sees  no 
conflict  at  all  between  the  biblical  account  of  creation 

286 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  287 

and  modern  science.  He  makes  no  attempt  at  any 
subtle  reconciliation  of  geology  and  Genesis  or  of  evolu- 
tion and  Revelation,  yet  he  is  very  positive  concerning 
the  Six  Days  of  Creation.  He  says  (p.  206) :  "I  do  not 
believe  that  the  Bible  teaches  evolution  or  gravitation 
or  the  undulatory  theory  of  life ;  nor  on  the  other  hand 
do  I  believe  that  it  contradicts  these  generalizations  of 
science.  The  simple  but  majestic  language  of  the  crea- 
tion story  tells  to  all  people  of  all  grades  of  intelligence 
that  back  of  the  creature  there  is  a  Creator.  No  intelli- 
gent person  now  maintains  that  it  (the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis)  teaches  that  all  things  were  made  in  six  literal 
days ;  we  could  not  if  we  would  maintain  that  it  teaches 
the  exact  number  and  sequence  of  geologic  ages ;  why 
should  anyone  attempt  to  maintain  that  it  teaches  the 
exact  process  of  creation  ?" 

Professor  Conklin  even  refers  to  the  church  fathers, 
St.  Augustine  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  believed 
in  a  kind  of  evolution,  or  thought  they  did. 

He  indicates  quite  clearly  that  he  is  rather  partial 
to  the  monkey  theory  by  referring  bitterly  to  those  who 
bitterly  denounce  it  and  who,  therefore  (p.  208),  "are 
sorely  puzzled  if  required  to  give  some  precise  idea 
regarding  the  process  by  which  they  conceive  that  God 
created  man."  On  the  other  hand  he  says  reverently 
(p.  221) :  "  And  yet  where  science  ends  faith  begins,  and 
like  the  child  or  the  savage,  the  philosopher  or  scientist 
may  still  say :  'In  the  beginning — God.'  " 

The  theory  of  evolution  is  not  per  se  on  trial.  The 
unscientific  pretensions  of  so-called  scientists  who  fab- 
ricate preposterous  compounds  and  classify  thorn  as 
"evidence"  are  not  on  trial — now.  Their  trial  is  a 
thing  of  the  past.  They  have  been  convicted.  Haeckol  's 
conception  of  God  as  a  gaseous  vertebrate  is  pro- 
nounced by  Conklin  "gross  and  blasphemous."  Per- 
haps Conklin  is  not  a  judge,  but  he  is  "now  recognized 


288  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

as  one  of  the  foremost  of  living  biologists."  His  judg- 
ment is  at  least  worthy  of  respect  for  he  pretends  to 
finality  in  nothing. 

The  Geological  Clocks 

If  you  will  pile  into  one  heap  the  most  highly  prob- 
able theories  of  geology,  palaeontology,  zoology,  biol- 
ogy, and  astronomy,  you  will  find  in  that  heap  an  un- 
canny agreement  with  the  Bible's  story  of  creation. 
The  "little  while"  of  time  as  compared  with  the  im- 
mensity of  eternity  may  mean  10,000  years  or  10,000,000 
years.  Gilbert  fixes  the  age  of  man  at  10,000  years, 
Osborn  at  500,000  years,  Draper  at  250,000  years ;  M. 
Joly  emphasizes  the  demand  of  geologists  for  10,000,- 
000  years.  As  for  the  alleged  age  of  the  Neanderthal 
man,  Professor  Arthur  Keith,  of  the  Royal  College  of 
Surgeons,  heretofore  quoted,  says :  "We  are  compelled 
to  admit  that  men  of  modern  type  had  been  in  existence 
long  before  the  Neanderthal  type."  Professor  Dwight 
of  Harvard  went  so  far  as  to  say : l i  For  my  part  I  be- 
lieve the  Neanderthal  man  to  be  a  specimen  of  a  race 
not  arrested  in  its  upward  climb  but  thrown  down 
from  a  higher  position.' '  This  is  degeneration 
from  a  higher  level,  not  ascending  evolution.  In- 
stead of  a  missing  link  between  an  ape  and  man 
the  Neanderthal  becomes  a  fallen  creature,  a  de- 
graded creature.  Wells  would  make  him  exalted 
above  the  ape.  The  facts  exposed  him  for  what  he 
was — a  long  step  down.  Even  in  John  Lubbock's  day 
it  had  been  established  that  the  Neanderthals  were  not 
alone  in  the  world  but  were  contemporaneous  with  a 
higher  race  from  which  they  represented  a  departure 
downward. 

Southall,  in  his  "The  Recent  Origin  of  Man,"  con- 
tended for  6,000  or  8,000  years.    G.  F.  Wright,  the  au- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  289 

thority  on  glacial  conditions,  testifies  to  the  unre- 
liability of  geological  clocks  as  time-pieces.  In  his 
"The  Origin  and  Antiquity  of  Man"  he  advances  proof 
to  show  that  the  entire  glacial  epoch  did  not  exceed 
80,000  years.  "The  portion  of  this  epoch  during  which 
man  existed,"  he  says,  "cannot  be  less  than  10,000  and 
need  not  be  more  than  15,000  years."  The  geologist 
Prestwich  limits  the  entire  glacial  period  to  but  25,000 
years  in  his  "Story  of  the  Earth  and  of  Man."  Pro- 
fessor Penck  calculates  the  time  which  has  elapse  1 
since  North  America  rose  out  of  the  waters  (since  the 
glacial  period)  as  not  less  than  5,500  and  not  more  than 
7,500  years,  yet  the  same  professor  stretches  the  length 
of  the  glacial  period  sufficiently  to  allow  250,000  to  500,- 
000  years  for  the  antiquity  of  man  in  Europe. 

Professor  Driver,  in  his  "Genesis,"  approximates 
20,000  years  as  the  maximum  antiquity  of  man. 

As  for  discrepancies  in  time,  they  are  so  many  and 
so  marvelous  when  the  scientists  begin  to  set  their  geo- 
logical clocks  that  there  can  be  no  quibbling  when  one 
examines  the  biblical  "Six  Days"  as  firstly,  secondly, 
thirdly,  fourthly,  fifthly,  sixthly. 

According  to  Lord  Kelvin,  the  earth  must  have  ro- 
tated with  double  its  present  rapidity  7,200,000,000 
years  ago.    That  would  make  it  very  old  indeed. 

Thomson  estimates  that  the  earth's  crust  became 
solid  less  than  1,000,000,000  years  ago. 

O.  Fischer  fixes  the  age  of  the  world  at  33,000,000 
years. 

Mellard  Reade  and  H.  G.  Darwin  attempt  to  show 
that  the  world  is  100,000,000  years  old. 

The  duration  of  the  geological  eras  simply  defies 
measurement.  "We  know  that  Niagara  Falls  has  re- 
ceded about  12  kilometres  since  the  Diluvial  glacial  pe- 
riod! Measuring  its  annual  recession  Lyell  demon- 
strates the  entire  period  of  recession  to  cover  36,000 


290  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

years.  The  corrections  of  Gilbert  and  Woodward  based 
on  later  observations  have  reduced  Lyell's  figures  to 
7,000  years. 

Geological  eras  cannot  be  measured  by  the  denuda- 
tion of  the  drainage  basins  of  rivers.  The  Nile  lowers 
its  level  about  one  meter  in  17,000  years.  The  Po  ac- 
complishes as  much  in  2,400  years.  The  Indian  rivers 
effect  the  same  result  in  5,200  years.  The  streams  of 
Central  Europe  on  the  other  hand  require  164,000  years 
to  do  what  the  River  Po  does  in  one-seventieth  the  time. 

Calculations  based  on  the  cooling  process  of  the  earth 
give  it  an  age  of  30,000,000  years.  Calculations  based 
on  the  theory  of  radio-activity  give  it  an  age  of  less 
than  6,000,000,000  years. 

A  study  of  all  the  systems  of  measurement,  in  each 
of  which  successive  groups  of  scientists  have  pointed 
out  gross  errors  and  miscalculations ,  results  in  the  pro- 
gressive reduction  of  the  number  of  years  ordinarily 
assigned  to  the  earth's  antiquity.  For  instance  in  the 
recession  of  waterfalls  on  the  Mississippi  River  in  Min- 
nesota, Winchell  came  to  the  astonishing  conclusion 
that  this  noble  stream  has  required  not  more  than  8,000 
years  to  excavate  its  course. 

In  estimating  the  age  of  the  cultural  remains  of  Di- 
luvial man  the  thickness  of  the  layers  of  clay  pressed 
down  as  dust  in  the  interior  of  protected  caves  is  em- 
ployed. An  example  is  the  cave  Teufelsloch  at  Stram- 
berg,  Moravia,  which  contains  traces  of  man  ascribed 
to  the  lower  layer  of  the  palaeolithic  age.  Near  the 
entrance  of  the  cave  the  thickness  of  the  uppermost 
layer,  which  extends  back  to  late  pre-historic  periods, 
measures  30-70  cm.  Below  this  is  found  cave  clay  30- 
50  cm.  in  depth  with  the  remains  of  post-glacial  prairie 
animals  and  cattle.  Still  lower  is  found  30-40  cm.  of 
earth  with  the  remains  of  glacial  prairie  animals.  The 
last  layer  contains  most  of  the  traces  of  man  upon 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  291 

which  is  based  the  estimation  that  the  interval  since 
man's  first  appearance  must  be  fixed  at  from  8,000  to 
10,000  years. 

The  calculations  based  on  the  deposits  made  by  rivers 
are  worthless,  as  an  avalanche,  a  flood  or  some  other 
catastrophe  could  bring  more  matter  into  the  river  in 
one  day  than  would  otherwise  be  deposited  in  a  hundred 
years.  Nevertheless  Heim  fixes  the  post-glacial  period 
at  16,000  years  as  a  result  of  his  observations  on  a  mo- 
raine in  the  lake  of  Lucerne.  Bruckner,  studying  the 
alluvial  deposits  of  the  Aar,  arrives  at  15,000  years. 
Morlot  demonstrates  that  the  Finiere  required  not  more 
than  10,000  years  to  form  the  cone-shaped  bank  at  its 
mouth  on  the  lake  of  Geneva. 

In  this  bank  Roman  bricks  were  found  at  a  depth  of 
1.2  meters ;  earthen  vessels  and  a  pair  of  bronze  tongs 
were  found  at  a  depth  of  3.2  meters.  At  a  depth  of  6 
meters  rude  pottery  and  the  bones  of  some  domestic 
animals  were  discovered.  Thus  Schaaffhausen  gives 
the  age  of  man  as  10,000  to  15,000  years.  Certain  it  is 
that  instead  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years  de- 
manded by  the  materialist  the  scientific  probability  ap- 
proaches ever  closer  to  10,000  years,  thus  showing  a 
tendency  to  return  to  the  chronology  of  the  Bible,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Jews  reckon  that  5,682  years  have 
elapsed  (1921)  since  the  creation  of  Adam. 

At  any  rate  there  was  a  beginning.  Science  suggests 
that  the  beginning  consisted  of  immense  drifts  of  atoms 
or  ions  wandering  through  vast  reaches  of  space.  Sci- 
ence suggests  that  these  drifts  slowly  but  surely  merged 
into  luminous  nebula.  Science  is  doubtful  as  to  whether 
the  original  nebula  consisted  of  loose  swarms  of  .^lone- 
cold  meteorites  developing  heat  eventually  by  the  proc 
ess  of  self-condensation,  but  science  is  quite  certain  that 
from  a  glowing,  luminous,  nebulous  chaos  the  stellar 


292  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

systems  leaped.    The  Bible  merely  says :  IN  THE  BE- 
GINNING GOD  CREATED  HEAVEN  AND  EARTH. 

The  Nebular  Hypothesis 

In  making  a  scientific  comparison  with  the  scriptural 
narrative  obviously  the  place  to  begin  is  in  the  nebular 
hypothesis,  although  during  the  past  sixty  years  the 
nebular  hypothesis,  which  had  previously  been  accepted 
by  astronomers  without  question,  has  been  so  modified 
that  Joseph  Barrell,  professor  of  structural  geology 
in  Yale  College,  declares:  "Not  much  remains  of  the 
original  conception  of  Laplace.  The  nebular  hypothesis 
is  now  on  the  defensive  and  has  lost  standing  during 
the  past  generation. ' ' 

When  asked  by  the  Anglican  Bishop  Ellicott  regard- 
ing the  mention  of  " light"  in  Genesis  previous  to  the 
first  mention  of  the  sun,  Clerc  Maxwell,  originator  of 
the  electro-magnetic  theory  of  light,  prudently  coun- 
selled the  bishop  against  pinning  any  text  of  Scripture 
to  a  conjectural  hypothesis,  even  though  it  chanced  to 
be  his  own.  "The  rate  of  change  of  scientific  hypoth- 
eses,' '  he  observed,  "is  naturally  much  more  rapid 
than  that  of  biblical  interpretations,  so  that  if  an  inter- 
pretation is  found  on  such  an  hypothesis,  it  may  help  to 
keep  the  hypothesis  above  ground  long  after  it  ought 
to  be  buried  and  forgotten. ' '  ( See  ' i  Evolution  and  So- 
cial Progress,"  pp.  112  and  113,  and  "Life  of  Clerc 
Maxwell,"  p.  394.) 

Nevertheless  the  Mosaic  account  tallies  with  the 
chronological  development  of  the  earth  even  as  it  is 
presented  by  scientific  hypotheses.  With  regard  to 
the  scripture  "myth"  of  creation  the  idea  persists  that 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  cannot  be  taken  seriously 
by  scientific  men,  yet  the  facts  are  that  it  has  been 
taken  most  seriously  by  many  eminent  scientists.    St. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  293 

Jerome,  one  of  the  foremost  of  scripture  scholars,  laid 
down  a  principle  that  must  ever  guide  the  student.  Be 
stressed  the  point  that  certain  things  in  the  sacral 
writings  may  be  said  "according  to  the  ideas  of  time 
or  according  to  the  appearance  of  things  rather  than 
according  to  the  actual  truth."  Even  today  we  speak 
of  "the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun.'' 

The  eloquence  and  clarity  of  Husslein  on  the  subjects 
of  "how  the  earth  was  made"  and  "how  life  appeared 
on  earth"  are  worthy  of  profound  study.  Penetrating 
the  smug  assurance  of  the  materialist  who  scoffs  at  the 
biblical  narrative  of  creation  they  lift  the  thoughts  of 
man  beyond  the  "scientific"  cloud  in  which  he  moves 
blindly,  and  aid  his  vision  as  if  by  a  powerful  glass 
which  brings  into  the  foreground  in  sharp  detail  the 
vague  and  shapeless  masses  that  are  found  upon  exami- 
nation to  be  no  Frankensteins  at  all,  but  beautiful  and 
wholly  scientific  concepts. 

The  Evidence  of  Light 

Both  the  earth  and  its  now  dead  moon  had  passed 
through  fire,  and  though  cooling,  the  earth's  crust  was 
still  hot  and  there  were  fires  in  its  heart.  The  moon 
had  no  "atmosphere"  but  science  tells  us  that  on  the 
surface  of  the  earth  were  great  masses  of  steaming, 
hissing,  boiling  vapor,  turbulent  vortices  of  clouds 
miles  in  depth.  No  light  could  penetrate  this  stormy 
curtain.  Such  is  the  record  of  science.  See  how  it 
agrees  with  the  Bible— AND  THE  EARTH  WAS 
VOID  AND  EMPTY,  AND  DARKNESS  WAS  UPON" 
THE  FACE  OF  THE  DEEP;  AND  THE  SPIRIT  OF 
GOD  MOVED  OVER  THE  WATERS. 

The  surface  of  the  earth  was  indeed  a  waste  of 
waters. 

"Then,"  says  the  Yale  geologist,  "rain  ever  descend- 


294  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

ing  from  the  shield  of  perpetual  cloud,  but  never  here- 
tofore reaching  the  bottom  of  the  atmosphere,  at  last 
began  to  splash  on  the  hot  surface  of  the  earth.  The 
raindrops  at  first  were  dissipated  by  contact  and  sent 
flying  as  scattered  molecules  of  gas.  But,  owing  to  the 
low  conductivity  of  rocks,  the  transition  stage  was  very 
brief,  and  perhaps  even  in  a  few  thousand  years  from 
the  time  when  the  crustal  congelation  of  the  earth  had 
taken  place  a  permanent  ocean  of  acid  water  began  to 
rest  upon  the  surface. 

"For  a  while  the  balance  swung,  as  one  section  or 
another  of  the  crust  was  broken  through  and  lavas 
would  pour  out  abundantly.  Rapidly,  however,  from 
the  geological  standpoint,  as  the  surface  cooled  the 
atmosphere  of  water  vapor  condensed  in  a  never  ceas- 
ing deluge,  until  an  ocean  probably  universal  in  its  ex- 
tent had  gathered  to  a  mean  depth  of  several  thousand 
feet. ' '  Says  Husslein : ' '  Now,  and  now  only  could  there 
be  question  of  light  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  con- 
densation of  the  great  zone  of  vapor  that  had  encom- 
passed this  watery  world  made  possible  at  last  the  first 
admission  of  light.  At  this  same  point,  too,  the  Scrip- 
ture makes  its  first  mention  of  light :  AND  GOD  SAID : 
BE  LIGHT  MADE.   AND  LIGHT  WAS  MADE.' ' 

What  follows  is  not  theology;  it  is  science.  Yet  in 
marvelous  harmony  with  the  scientific  theories  formu- 
lated in  explanation  of  the  birth  of  the  world  the  Mosaic 
narrative  seems  to  agree  in  minute  detail  with  the  sci- 
entific theory  of  light. 

According  to  the  Bible  the  sun  had  not  been  created 
when  the  first  light  appeared.  Science,  with  no  thought 
of  supporting  the  Bible,  but  with  many  demands  that 
the  Bible  should  be  broken  down,  tells  us  that  the  first 
light  consisted  of  the  faint,  luminous  glow  of  the  neb- 
ular masses  which  were  in  no  sense  fiery  planets  or 
suns.  ' '  Even  when  the  sun  had  probably  been  formed, ' ' 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  295 

says  Husslein,  "and  its  light  was  first  introduced 
through  the  blanket  of  mists  that  covered  the  earth,  it 
could  not  have  been  described  other  than  as  a  diffu- 
sion of  faint  radiance.  It  was  light  but  not  a  sun  that 
would  have  been  visible  here  on  the  watery  surface  of 
the  terrestrial  globe.  It  has  even  been  held  that  the 
sun  itself  was  at  this  time  still  but  a  cloudy  volume  of 
nebulous  or  gaseous  matter  diffusing  a  comparatively 
weak  light  through  its  own  dense  atmosphere." 

Why  did  Moses  speak  of  " light"  before  he  spoke  of 
the  sun,  unless  he  had  some  vision  of  the  pre-solar  globe 
which  so  many  centuries  later  was  advanced  by  so 
many  nebular  hypotheses?  One  would  assume  that 
Moses  anticipated  the  criticism  that  "science  and  re- 
ligion are  out  of  harmony  with  each  other,"  by  provid- 
ing this  profoundly  subtle  chronology  of  the  principal 
events  of  creation. 

Of  equal  significance,  when  viewed  from  its  scientific 
aspects,  is  the  next  scriptural  reference  to  what  fol- 
lowed: "AND  GOD  SAW  THE  LIGHT  THAT  IT 
WAS  GOOD;  AND  HE  DIVIDED  THE  LIGHT 
FROM  THE  DARKNESS.  AND  HE  CALLED  THE 
LIGHT  DAY,  AND  THE  DARKNESS  NIGHT ;  AND 
THERE  WAS  EVENING  AND  MORNING  ONE 
DAY.  ■  ' 

Science  had  not  then  discovered  that  the  earth  was 
round,  a  revolving  globe,  yet  today  all  scientific 
theories,  some  of  which  must  approach  the  truth  even 
though  so  many  are  now  admitted  by  science  to  be  false, 
rest  comfortably  under  the  shadows  of  the  preceding 
Scripture  passage.  The  mists  were  still  heavy  and 
such  exterior  light,  whether  it  came  from  the  solar 
nebula  or  from  the  sun,  penetrated  them  with  compara- 
tively feeble  glow,  such,  perhaps,  as  one  now  perceiv 
in  storm,  even  though  beyond  the  storm  cloud  the  sun 
shines  fiercely. 


296  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  probability  is  that  this  light,  distinguishing  day 
from  night,  even  though  faintly  diffused  through  the 
mists,  originated  not  with  the  solar  nebula,  but  in  the 
sun  itself,  for  the  reason  that  the  glow  by  this  time  was 
more  pronounced  upon  one  side  of  the  revolving  earth 
than  upon  the  other,  so  that  the  contrast  of  night  was 
sufficiently  denned  to  draw  a  line  between  the  two.  Had 
the  light  not  come  from  the  sun  the  nebular  glow  doubt- 
less would  have  been  equal  in  both  hemispheres  and 
there  could  have  been  no  division  between  day  and 
night. 

The  Evidence  of  Water 

Moses  had  none  of  the  advantages  of  the  modern 
geologist  in  arriving  at  the  graphic  pictures  of  the 
separation  of  land  and  water  which  he  describes  in  its 
correct  chronological  order,  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  scientific  opinions  of  the  twentieth  century.  ' '  AND 
GOD  SAID  LET  THERE  BE  A  FIRMAMENT 
MADE  AMIDST  THE  WATERS:  AND  LET  IT 
DIVIDE  THE  WATERS  FROM  THE  WATERS." 

The  surface  of  the  earth,  it  must  be  remembered,  was 
under  these  waters,  and  what  is  now  the  air  was  filled 
with  water  in  the  form  of  vapor.  The  terms  1 1  air ' '  and 
" atmosphere"  must  not  be  confounded.  Chamberlain 
holds  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  earth  was  bathed 
in  no  envelope  of  air  that  could  be  breathed.  Certainly 
this  envelope  of  vapors  contained  such  deadly  poisons 
as  sulphur  dioxide,  carbon  monoxide,  hydrocyanic 
fumes  and  the  many  other  toxic  gases  of  combustion 
and  volatilization. 

It  is  the  clearing  up  of  the  air  that  the  Bible  de- 
scribes when  the  vaporous  waters  above  the  earth  were 
separated  by  condensation  from  the  fluid  waters  upon 
the  earth's  surface.    "The  solid  globe,"  says  Husslein, 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  297 

"was  spanned  at  length  with  what  the  sacred  writer 
calls  'the  firmament, '  although  the  heavenly  luminaries 
did  not  as  yet  shine  forth  in  it.  It  was  evidently  meant 
to  describe  the  atmosphere  ' amidst  the  waters.'  Be- 
tween the  canopy  of  the  clouds  through  which  the  light 
was  diffused  with  increasing  brightness,  and  the  ocean 
that  hitherto  had  covered  the  earth,  there  henceforth 
existed  what  the  translator  has  rendered  by  the  Eng- 
lish word  'the  firmament. '  It  was  the  atmospheric 
space  between  the  two  worlds  of  water. " 


The  Evidence  of  Land 

The  geologists  are  agreed  among  themselves  as  to 
what  next  took  place  upon  the  earth's  crust  when  the 
ocean  basins  were  formed  by  the  sinking  of  broad  areas 
of  the  earth's  surface  and  the  mighty  eruptions  of 
highlands  and  mountains.  Into  the  deepened  basins  the 
waters  poured,  and  the  great  oceans  and  seas  were  sep- 
arated from  dry  land. 

Perhaps  Moses  could  not  have  known  what  the  mod- 
ern geologist  knows  through  the  instrumentality  of 
modern  science,  but  what  he  knew  was  sufficient  to  in- 
spire a  repetition  of  the  ejaculation  of  Ampere : 
"  Either  Moses  knew  as  much  about  science  as  we,  or 
else  he  was  inspired. " 

God  also  said:  "LET  THE  WATERS  THAT  ARE 
UNDER  THE  HEAVENS  BE  GATHERED  TO- 
GETHER INTO  ONE  PLACE:  AND  LET  DRY 
LAND  APPEAR." 

"Thus,"  says  Husslein,  "in  every  line  and  letter  do 
our  most  scientific  conclusions  conform  here  with  those 
of  the  sacred  writer  as  he  pictures  the  first  making  of 
our  planet  with  its  hemispheres  of  light  and  darkness, 
its  gathering  oceans  and  its  rising  continents. ' 


298  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

The  Evidence  of  Plants 

Professor  Lorande  Loss  Woodruff,  referring  to  the 
appearance  of  plant  life  upon  the  earth  before  the  sun 
could  shine  through  the  mists,  mentions  the  existence 
of  life  elements  upon  the  earth  "  before  the  atmospheric 
vapors  admitted  a  regular  supply  of  sunlight." 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  scientific 
men  that  plants  and  trees  flourished  upon  the  earth 
under  such  conditions.  Not  only  is  Woodruff  of  this 
opinion  ("The  Evolution  of  the  Earth,"  p.  105)  but 
John  Smyth  ("Genesis  and  Science,"  p.  40)  says: 
' '  The  plants  and  trees  composing  the  carboniferous 
strata  may  have  flourished  luxuriously  on  the  margin 
of  shallow  seas  long  before  the  sun  deserved  the  name 
of  a  great  light." 

Obviously  before  the  earth  was  ready  to  support  ani- 
mal life  there  had  to  be  vegetable  life  on  which  animal 
life  could  feed.  As  animals  have  to  eat  today,  so  did 
they  always  have  to  eat.  Even  the  apes  remain  vege- 
tarians, and  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the  stomachs 
of  all  the  chimpanzees  and  gorillas  shot  by  explorers 
are  found  to  contain  leaves,  berries,  tender  bark  and 
other  forms  of  vegetable  food. 

In  this  strange  chronology  vegetable  life  appears 
in  the  precise  location  in  the  biblical  narrative  of  crea- 
tion to  which  modern  science  must  assign  it.  "AND 
THE  EAETH  BEOUGHT  FORTH  THE  GREEN 
HERB,  AND  SUCH  AS  YIELDETH  SEED  AC- 
CORDING TO  ITS  KIND,  AND  THE  TREE  THAT 
BEARETH  FRUIT,  HAVING  SEED  EACH  ONE 
ACCORDING  TO  ITS  KIND." 

The  Evidence  of  Sun,  Moon  and  Stabs 

How  did  Moses  know  what  the  scientists  now  admit? 
How  did  Moses  know  light  existed  in  the  universe  be- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  299 

fore  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  beamed  upon  the  earth 
from  the  heavens?  Why  did  Moses  do  the  very  thing 
that  he  never  could  have  been  expected  to  do  had  he 
received  no  divine  revelation  of  the  truth,  when  he  re- 
ported the  creation  of  plant  life  before  mentioning, 
even  remotely,  the  sun,  the  moon  and  the  stars?  Why 
did  he  begin  with  the  creation  of  light  and  then  go  on 
in  a  humanly  inexplicable  line  of  scientific  sequence, 
arriving  at  plants  and  trees  before  making  any  refer- 
ence to  the  celestial  bodies? 

The  incredulous  would  still  insist  upon  the  impos- 
sibility of  such  order  if  science  itself  had  not  confirmed 
the  sequence. 

"AND  GOD  MADE  TWO  GREAT  LIGHTS:  A 
GREATER  LIGHT  TO  RULE  THE  DAY;  AND  A 
LESSER  LIGHT  TO  RULE  THE  NIGHT;  AND 
THE  STARS.' ' 

Give  a  baby  two  wooden  blocks,  each  of  them  bearing 
the  numbers  1  and  2  respectively.  By  accident  the 
baby  might  place  the  two  blocks  side  by  side  on  the  floor 
in  their  proper  order.  But  give  the  same  baby  ten 
blocks  numbered  from  1  to  10  and  the  chances  are  one 
in  many  thousands  that  it  will  string  them  out  numer- 
ically, beginning  with  number  1  and  ending  with  num- 
ber 10. 

The  Evidence  of  Fish  and  Fowl 

"No  scientist,' '  says  Husslein,  "can  question  the  ac- 
cordance between  the  sequence  of  the  remaining  epochs 
of  creation  and  that  of  the  fossil  evidence  written  in 
the  rocks.  The  Book  of  Revelation  reads  like  a  perfect 
transcript  from  the  Book  of  Nature.  "Yet  the  pages 
of  this  vast  volume  were  not  laid  open  in  the  Mosaic 
days,  to  be  read  as  now  we  can  read  them. " 

"God  also  said:  LET  THE  WATERS  BRING 
FORTH  THE  CREEPING  CREATURE  HAVING 


300  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

LIFE,  AND  THE  FOWL  THAT  MAY  FLY  OVER 
THE  EARTH  UNDER  THE  FIRMAMENT  OF 
HEAVEN. 

"AND  GOD  CREATED  THE  GREAT  WHALES, 
AND  EVERY  LIVING  AND  MOVING  CREATURE, 
WHICH  THE  WATERS  BROUGHT  FORTH,  AC- 
CORDING TO  THEIR  KINDS,  AND  EVERY 
WINGED  FOWL  ACCORDING  TO  ITS  KIND." 

"Here,"  says  Sir  Bertram  Winclle,  "we  arrive  at 
the  second  mile-stone  in  the  path  of  progress,  for  not 
only  do  we  find  ourselves  confronted  by  life  bnt  for  the 
first  time  with  sentient  life,  and,  it  is  described  at 
the  place  where  science  tells  us  that  it  might  be  looked 
for. 

"  'Now  here  we  have  another  agreement  between  the 
Scriptural  and  scientific  accounts,  for  the  evolutionists 
will  certainly  not  deny  that  zoological  life  seems  first 
of  all  to  have  originated  in  the  sea ;  that  it  was  preceded 
by  the  appearance  of  vegetable  life ;  that  fishes  did  come 
before  birds  and  that  the  gigantic  saurians — which  it 
is  suggested  may  have  been  intended  by  the  Hebrew 
word  commonly  but  probably  incorrectly  translated 
"whales" — were  a  very  remarkable  feature  of  the  pe- 
riod of  geological  time  at  which  we  have  now  arrived, 
since  some  of  them  attained  a  length  of  at  least  fifty 
feet.  It  has  also  been  pointed  out  that  it  is  somewhat 
remarkable  that  the  writer,  of  course  unfamiliar  with 
science,  should  have  grouped  birds  with  fishes  and  not 
with  mammals,  which  would  have  seemed  more  natural. 
Yet  in  doing  so  he  is  acting  quite  correctly.'  "  ("The 
Church  and  Science,"  pp.  181,  182). 

"The  inspired  writer,"  comments  Husslein,  "was 
not  to  write  a  text-book  of  science,  a  discussion  of  verte- 
brates and  invertebrates.  His  picture  was  necessarily 
to  be  given  in  strong,  bold  lines,  and  in  a  language  in- 
telligible to  all  his  hearers  through  the  course  of  ages. 


SKELETON  OF  THE   POLAR   BEAR. 


SKELETON  OF  THE  LION7. 


SKELETON  OF  THE  RUFFLED  LEMUR. 


Note  the  skeletons  of  the  lemur,  polar  beaT  and  lion.  Tli 
unrelated  beasts  ''resemble"  each  other  more  closely 
than  ape  and  man,  yet  this  " resemblance ' '  is  wholly 
ignored  by  the  ape-manologist.  The  skeleton  <>t'  the 
mandrill,  or  rib-nosed  baboon,  is  in  many  respei 
especially  in  the  natural  walking  posture,  similar  to 
the  skeleton  of  all  the  anthropoid  apes.  What  con- 
clusion does  the  nr>p-ni:inolo."ist   draw  from  these  ''re- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  301 

Such  was  God's  plan.  Yet  the  broad  succession  of  life- 
forms  in  the  Scripture  account  is  accurately  the  same 
as  that  which  science  teaches  us  it  must  have  been ;  first 
vegetative  organisms;  then  the  primitive  sea-worms, 
fishes  and  saurians ;  next  the  birds,  and  finally  the  fully 
developed  forms  of  the  land  animals  preparatory  to 
the  coming  of  man." 


The  Evidence  of  Beasts 

"And  God  said:  LET  THE  EARTH  BRINij 
FORTH  THE  LIVING  CREATURE  IN  ITS  KIND, 
CATTLE  AND  CREEPING  THINGS,  AND  BEASTS 
OF  THE  EARTH,  ACCORDING  TO  THEIR 
KINDS." 

"It  should  again  be  understood,  on  the  chronological 
hypothesis,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  but  one  method 
of  interpreting  the  narrative  of  the  Creation,  that  as 
Genesis  is  not  intended  for  a  detailed  scientific  account, 
so  science  in  its  turn  has  only  the  most  fragmentary 
records  to  offer.  Thus  it  is  stated  that  the  fossils  of 
reptiles  are  found  before  those  of  birds;  it  does  not 
follow  that  reptiles  actually  preceded  the  birds  in  the 
order  of  direct  creation  or  of  evolution.  The  earliest 
birds,  more  delicate  in  structure,  might  more  readily 
have  been  destroyed  so  that  fossil  traces  could  not  be 
found  of  them.  Here  our  knowledge  is  so  utterly  in- 
adequate. Hence  there  could  be  no  question,  on  such  a 
supposition,  of  affirming  any  contradiction.  We  have 
but  begun  our  discoveries,  and  we  shall  never  be  able 
scientifically  to  establish  all  the  data  for  the  beginnings 
of  life.  The  earliest  records,  in  fact,  are  almost  com- 
pletely destroyed,  like  the  writings  that  have  been 
effaced  from  a  school-boy's  slate,  with  but  a  curve  or 
a  dot  remaining,  here  or  there.    It  is  the  height  of  ab- 


302  GOD—OR  GORILLA 

surdity  to  speak  of  these  questions  with  apodictic  cer- 
tainty, where  even  guessing  is  hazardous. 

"One  other  fact  must  still  be  stated  here,  and  that 
is  that  the  rocks  of  the  earth  themselves  bear  no  direct 
evidence  of  any  evolution.  The  various  types,  even 
among  the  early  invertebrates  in  the  Cambrian  forma- 
tion, appear  '  clearly  separated  into  all  the  families 
and  most  of  the  classes  which  exist  at  present.'  The 
same  is  true  of  the  vertebrates.  The  fishes  in  the  lower 
Silurian  formation  appear  just  as  clearly  separated 
from  the  invertebrates.  '  There  are  numerous  quite  dif- 
ferent types  existing,  but  separate  from  the  begin- 
nmg.7  " 

1 '  The  first  birds,  though  with  certain  reptilian  char- 
acteristics, cannot  be  shown  to  have  really  descended 
from  any  particular  reptile.  The  earliest  mammalia 
are  clearly  differentiated,  and  we  find  them  at  the 
eocene  period  '  almost  as  fully  typified  and  as  sharply 
defined  as  today,  particularly  such  as  were  of  unusual 
size  or  of  peculiar  traveling  powers  or  habits  of  life. '  " 
(See  Steinmann,  "Die  geologischen  Grundlagen  der 
Abstammungslehre,"  p.  233. — Frank,  p.  33). 

"That  higher  classes  are  descended  from  these  is 
therefore  'in  no  single  case  other  than  probable, '  or 
as  Darwin  says  in  the  words  previously  quoted,  we 
cannot  prove  the  evolution  of  even  one  single  species 
into  another.  ("Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,' ' 
I,  p.  210). 

"All  that  we  can  say  is  that  the  various  clearly  dis- 
tinct species  appear  abruptly  in  their  geological  layers, 
as  definitely  characterized  types.  Sir  William  Dawson 
quite  correctly  writes  ("Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution,,) 

"  'The  compound  eyes  and  filmy  wings  of  insects 
the  teeth,  bones  and  scales  of  batrachians  and  fishes 
all  are  as  perfectly  finished,  and  many  quite  as  complete 
and  elegant  as  in  the  animals  of  the  present  day.  .  .  . 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  303 

At  one  time  it  is  broad-leaved  forest  trees  that  enter 
upon  the  scene,  altogether  different  from  those  thai 
went  before;  at  other  times,  lizard-like  reptiles,  birds 
and  mammals,  each  stamped  at  its  first  coming  with  the 
essential  characteristics  of  its  class  as  we  know  it  to- 
day; SO  THAT  IT  IS  IMPOSSIBLE,  EXCEPT  BY 
VIOLENT  SUPPOSITIONS,  TO  CONNECT  THEM 
GENETICALLY  WITH  ANY  PREDECESSORS/ 

"Hence  it  was  possible  for  a  really  eminent  biologist, 
such  as  Professor  Fleischmann  certainly  must  be  reck- 
oned, entirely  to  reject  the  evolutionary  theories  in 
the  day  of  their  full  glory.  Hence,  also,  it  was  possible 
for  other  independent  thinkers  to  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  facts  of  nature  do  not  give  any  evi- 
dence of  gradual  evolution,  but  rather  must  be  ex- 
plained away  in  favor  of  it.  On  this  important  point 
Hull  writes : 

"  '  Attempts  have  been  made  to  arrange  in  order  the 
gradual  evolution  of  the  different  species  from  the 
lower  to  the  higher,  and  from  the  simpler  to  the  more 
complex.  The  genealogical  tree  thus  produced,  both 
for  the  plant  and  the  animals  orders,  almost  over- 
whelms the  mind  with  a  conviction  of  its  truth,  UNTIL 
WE  BEGIN  TO  REALIZE  HOW  MUCH  SPECULA- 
TION AND  GUESSWORK  HAVE  BEEN  MIXED 
UP  WITH  FACT  in  the  formation  of  the  pedigrees ; 
and  moreover,  how  difficult  it  is  to  imagine  the  process 
by  which  the  larger  divisions  of  vegetable  and  animal 
types  can  have  passed  over  the  dividing  line  between 
one  and  another. 

"  'A  student  who  recently  took  his  doctorate  of  bi- 
ology in  Berlin  told  me  that  on  account  of  these  diffi- 
culties and  gaps  the  most  profound  of  his  professors, 
while  adhering  faithfully  to  the  evolution  theory  AS  A 
THEORY,  acknowledged  that  as  soon  as  one  begins  i^ 
examine  the  process  in  detail,  the  difficulties  are  simply 


304  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

unsurpassable,  and  the  transitions  become  in  some 
points  even  unthinkable.  Hence  we  are  far  from  hav- 
ing reached  the  point  where  the  evolution-theory  is 
even  promising  to  pass  from  the  region  of  the  hypothe- 
sis into  the  region  of  ascertained  fact. ' 

' 'To  the  Scripture  scholar,  we  need  not  repeat,  it  is 
a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  successive  species 
hitherto  described  in  the  Sacred  Text  were  created  di- 
rectly, or  through  the  even  more  wonderful  medium 
of  evolution,  according  to  laws  divinely  foreordained 
and  imprinted  on  the  originally  created  elements.  Cer- 
tain restrictions,  as  we  have  seen,  are  to  be  made,  which 
science  and  reason  postulate,  nor  do  we  wish  here  to 
anticipate  what  is  still  to  be  said  of  the  specific  creation 
of  the  first  human  beings. 

"The  old  theory  of  a  gradual  transformation  of 
species,  we  have  also  shown,  was  widely  discarded  by 
scientists  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  in 
favor  of  the  '  saltatory  theory'  popularized  by  De  Vries, 
which  calls  for  the  sudden  and  not  for  the  gradual  ap- 
pearance of  the  new  species.  It  was  thus  a  complete  re- 
versal of  the  position  of  the  older  evolutionists,  once 
considered  unassailable.  For  the  present  it  suffices  to 
have  pointed  out  what  agreement  there  exists  between 
the  facts  of  science  and  the  actual  sequence  of  creative 
acts  in  the  order  in  which  we  find  them  recorded  in  the 
Scripture.  The  comparison  draws  from  Col.  Turton 
the  following  striking  remarks:  'The  points  of  agree- 
ment between  Genesis  and  science  are  far  too  many  and 
far  too  unlikely  to  be  due  to  accident.  They  are  far  too 
many;  for  the  chances  against  even  eight  events  put 
down  in  their  correct  order  by  guesswork  is  40,319  to  1. 
And  they  are  far  too  unlikely ;  for  what  could  have  in- 
duced an  ignorant  man  (i.  e.,  ignorant  of  modern  sci- 
ence) to  say  that  light  came  before  the  sun  or  that  the 
earth  once  existed  without  any  dry  land." 


CHAPTER  XXV 

The  Evidence  of  Man 

The  evidence  of  man. 

The  creation  of  man  follows  in  the  last  place,  pre- 
cisely where  science  demands  that  it  should  follow. 
"  AND  GOD  CREATED  MAN  TO  HIS  OWN  IMAGE : 
TO  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD  HE  CREATED  HIM: 
MALE  AND  FEMALE  HE  CREATED  THEM." 
What  kind  of  man  did  He  create?  Alfred  Russell  Wal- 
lace says  ("The  World  of  life,"  p.  403) :  "Man  is  the 
one  being  who  can  appreciate  the  infinite  variety  and 
beauty  of  the  life  world,  the  one  being  who  can  utilize 
in  any  adequate  manner  the  myriad  products  of  its 
mechanics  and  its  chemistry.  Man  is  the  only  being 
capable,  in  some  degree,  of  comprehending  and  appre- 
ciating the  fore-ordained  method  of  a  supreme  mind. 
That  is  surely  the  glory  and  distinction  of  man — that  lit- 
is continually  and  steadily  advancing  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  vastness  and  mystery  of  the  universe  in  which 
he  lives."  Again  he  says  (p.  423) :  "We  are  forced 
to  the  assumption  of  an  infinite  God  by  the  fact  that  our 
earth  has  developed  life  and  mind  and  ourselves. " 

Practically  all  the  skeletal  evidence,  characterized  as 
Neanderthal,  exhibits  features  in  many  respects  supe- 
rior to  some  of  our  modern  types.  The  Piltdown  skull 
itself,  to  the  despair  of  the  theorists,  presents  "NO 
PROMINENT  OR  THICKENED  RIDGE  ABOVE 
THE  ORBITS."  It  was  an  unfortunate  day  for  the 
ape-man  evolutionist  when  he  began  to  stress  those 

305 


306  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

supra-orbital  ridges  as  proof  of  relationship  to  a  sim- 
ian ancestor.  Always  lie  has  insisted  that  the  lower 
the  race  and  the  closer  to  the  ape  the  more  marked  the 
supra-orbital  ridges.  This,  of  course,  means  that  the 
white  man  of  Europe  is  actually  nearer  to  the  ape  than 
the  negro  of  Africa  and  the  Chinaman  of  Asia.  The 
black  and  yellow  races,  were  they  only  conscious  of  the 
fact,  could  draw  a  stunning  conclusion  from  those 
supra-orbital  ridges. 

You  are  not  asked  to  take  the  writer's  word  for  this. 
On  the  ground  of  possible  bias  you  have  every  right  to 
exclude  his  testimony,  but  there  can  be  no  suspicion 
of  bias  when  Professor  Arthur  Keith  speaks,  for  he 
holds  fast  to  the  belief  that  he  himself  is  a  descendant 
of  the  ape.  He  says,  as  we  have  already  seen  ("The 
Human  Body,"  1910,  pp.  177-179):  "In  the  typical 
African  negro  the  forehead  as  a  rule  is  high  and  the 
supra-orbital  ridges  ARE  DISTINCTLY  LESS 
PROMINENT  THAN  IN  THE  EUROPEAN.  THE 
SUPRA-ORBITAL  RIDGES  OF  THE  CHINAMAN 
ARE  LESS  DEVELOPED  THAN  IN  THE  EURO- 
PEAN.' '    But,  to  go  back  to  the  cave  man! 

Many  of  the  oldest  skull  fronts  are  spoken  of  as 
i '  steep  "  or  "  high. ' '  Primitive  man  was  a  SUPERIOR 
BEING.  His  mental  gifts  as  recorded  in  the  art  objects 
discovered  with  many  of  his  remains  have  been  de- 
scribed by  Dr.  James  J.  Walsh  in  a  manner  which  Pro- 
fessor Osborn,  as  we  have  seen,  characterizes  as  "schol- 
arly." A  single  sentence  from  the  paper  by  Walsh  to 
which  Osborn  refers  is  eloquent:  "In  the  face  of  all 
the  evidence  we  have  brought  forth,  the  long-cherished 
notion  of  the  cave  man  as  one  little  higher  than  the 
brute  must  be  replaced  by  the  recognition  of  him  as  an 
artist  of  intelligence  and  rare  ability. ' ' 

"The  cave  man,  according  to  theory,"  says  Walsh, 
"has  been  pictured  as  little  higher  than  the  beast;  now 


Courtesi/  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Another  view  of  Orang,  depicting  this  creature  in  "thoughtful' 
mood.     The  sensitive  upper  lip  is  almost   Apollo-like   in  elo- 
quence, suggesting  the  mouthpiece  of  a   long  Decked  clam. 


! 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  307 

sixty  or  seventy  years  of  careful  investigation  of  his 
cave  dwellings  and  what  they  contained,  show  us  that 
he  was  an  artist  with  marvelous  powers  of  observation, 
and  a  still  more  marvelous  power  of  reproducing  In- 
artistic visions.  The  revelation  of  his  artistic  ability 
has  been  a  distinct  shock  to  the  modern  world.  The 
second  part  of  Professor  Osborn's  'Men  of  the  Old 
Stone  Age'  makes  it  clear  that  the  generally  accepted 
notions  with  regard  to  the  cave  man  will  have  to  be 
abandoned.  Hereafter  he  must  be  looked  upon  as  a 
brother  man  very  like  ourselves.  Our  imagination  pic- 
tured him  a  step  higher  than  the  beast.  Professor 
Osborn's  book  is  filled  with  illustrations  which  prove 
very  plainly  what  we  are  saying.  The  cave  man's 
art  of  engraving  rose  to  a  very  high  level  and  his 
drawing  was  particularly  admirable.  Three  of  its  qual- 
ities are  particularly  worthy  of  note.  First,  the  revela- 
tion of  a  very  close  observation  of  the  animal  form; 
second,  the  realistic  effect  produced  by  very  few  lines ; 
third,  the  well  expressed  suggestion  of  movement  and 
activity.  To  estimate  the  art  of  the  cave  man  it  is 
necessary  to  compare  his  work  not  with  that  of  chil- 
dren, nor  with  the  crude  productions  of  primitive 
painters,  but  with  the  leaders  of  our  modern  artists. 
In  the  comparison  the  cave  man's  art  does  not  suffer 
but  puts  our  own  modern  art  to  the  test. 

1 '  Among  the  engravings  on  small  objects  reproduced 
in  Professor  Osborn's  books  is,  for  instance,  an  impres- 
sionistic design  of  a  herd  of  reindeer  engraved  on  the 
radius — one  of  the  most  important  bones  of  the  eagle's 
wings.  This  illustrates  excellently  with  what  few  linea 
the  palaeolithic  artists  could  suggest  a  number  of  ani- 
mals. On  reindeer  horn  there  is  an  engraving  of  a 
deer  crossing  a  stream,  which  in  turn  is  full  o\'  lisln><. 
On  a  small  piece  of  stone,  three  by  four  inches,  th«' 
cave  artists  have  pictured  a  herd  of  horses  in  perspec- 


308  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tive.  On  a  piece  of  ivory  tusk  a  charging  mammoth 
is  pictured,  and  is  one  of  the  most  life-like  representa- 
tions of  an  animal  in  action  that  has  ever  been  done 
in  such  few  lines. 

"Not  only  did  the  cave  man  know  how  to  paint  an 
animal  in  motion,  but  he  knew  how  to  execute  that  much 
more  difficult  task  of  presenting  an  animal  for  the 
moment  at  rest,  yet  with  every  muscle  tense  and  ready 
for  action.  Pictures  of  reindeer  and  of  horses,  where 
action  for  the  moment  is  suppressed,  are  not  uncom- 
mon. It  is  wonderful  how  well  these  artists  of  olden 
times  have  illustrated  this  difficult  position.  Sup- 
pression of  emotion  is  for  the  dramatic  artists  one  of 
the  most  difficult  tasks;  it  is  equally  difficult  for  the 
artists  in  colors ;  yet  this  climax  of  artistic  power  has 
been  successfully  attained  by  the  first  group  of  artists 
of  whom  history  speaks. 

"Professor  Osborn  has  reproduced  in  his  book  the 
picture  of  a  bison  at  bay,  probably  the  best  known  of 
all  the  works  of  the  cave  man.  This  famous  picture 
is  on  the  ceiling  of  the  cavern  at  Altimira  in  Spain,  and 
represents  the  final  stage  of  polychrome  art,  in  which 
four  shades  of  color  are  used.  Its  color  sense,  as  well 
as  its  drawings,  proves  that  the  artist  was  one  who 
would  be  recognized  as  a  genius  at  any  period  in  the 
history  of  art.  It  is  facts  of  this  kind  that  bring  home 
to  us  the  striking  contrast  between  the  savage  cave 
man  of  imagination  and  theory  and  the  artistic  cave 
man  of  reality. ' ' 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Professor  Osborn  him- 
self characterizes  these  words  of  Dr.  Walsh  as  ' '  schol- 
arly.' '  Is  there  anything  new  in  the  Osborn  reproduc- 
tions of  the  cave  man's  art  or  in  the  comments  of  Dr. 
Walsh  upon  them?  Not  at  all.  For  more  than  fifty 
years  scholars  have  been  marveling  over  many  of  the 
carvings,  engravings,  and  pictures  of  the  cave  men. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  309 

In  the  1915  edition  of  Osborn's  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone 
Age,"  you  will  find,  p.  398,  the  engraving  of  a  mam- 
moth found  at  La  Madelaine. 

The  same  engraving  was  reproduced  by  Lord  Ave- 
bury  (John  Lubbock)  in  "Pre-Historic  Times,"  first 
published  1865.  In  the  New  York,  1910  edition,  the 
picture  of  the  same  mammoth  can  be  found  p.  312. 
The  writer  has  at  hand  the  original  London  1870  edition 
of  "Primitive  Man,"  by  Louis  Figuier.  The  same 
engraving  of  the  La  Madelaine  mammoth  is  found  p. 
106,  just  forty-five  years  before  Professor  Osborn  made 
use  of  it.  In  ' '  Early  Man  in  Europe, ' '  by  Charles  Rau, 
New  York,  1876,  the  same  engraving  is  reproduced 
p.  59. 

The  reproduction  of  the  browsing  reindeer  engraved 
on  reindeer  horn,  as  published  by  Osborn,  p.  441,  the 
writer  has  found  in  the  1910  edition  of  "Pre-Historic 
Times,"  p.  122,  and  in  the  1876  edition,  "Early  Man 
in  Europe,"  p.  105.    In  both  the  latter  the  engraving 
is  described  as  "From  Thayngen  Cave,  Switzerland." 
Osborn  labels  it ' '  From  Kessleroch,  Switzerland. ' '  An- 
other engraving  on  reindeer  horn  reproduced  by  Os- 
born, p.  359,  and  described  as  "batons  de  commande- 
ment,"  the  writer  has  found  in  the  New  York,  1894 
edition,  of  "Manners  and  Monuments  of  Pre-Historic 
People,"  by  de  Nadillac,"  p.  113,  described  as  "staff 
of  office."    The  same  reproduction  described  as  "staff 
of  authority"  is  also  found,  p.  102,  in  the  1870  London 
edition,  "Primitive  Man."     In  the   1894  edition  de 
Nadillac  reproduces  a  carving  of  a  grazing  reindeer, 
a  carving  of  a  mammoth,  a  seal  engraved  on  a  bear's 
tooth,  a  great  cave  bear  drawn  on  a  pebble,  a  horse 
engraved  on  a  reindeer  antler,  etc.,  none  of  which 
is  reproduced  by  Osborn. 

Grant  that  the  cave  men  artists  did  begin  in  the 
Aurignacian   times,   which   Osborn    says    commenced 


310  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

40,000  years  ago,  and  grant  that  they  advanced  into 
Magdalenean  times  which  marked  the  close  of  the  post- 
glacial period  18,000  years  ago,  we  are  compelled  to  ad- 
mit that  the  cave  man  was  not  an  inferior  ape-man  but 
a  superior  member  of  the  human  family  whose  skull- 
cap, like  the  Piltdown  skull-cap,  might  have  sheltered, 
to  repeat  the  judgment  of  Huxley,  the  brain  of  a  phil- 
osopher. 

If,  in  the  earliest  evidence  of  man  as  uncovered  by 
palaeontologists,  we  discover  evidence  not  of  gross  in- 
feriority or  of  simian  characteristics,  but  of  genuine 
superiority  it  becomes  all  the  more  difficult  to  support 
the  theory  of  a  gradual  evolution  from  the  ape.  With 
this  proposition  we  are  literally  compelled  to  note  the 
evidence  not  for  an  ascending  evolution  but  on  the  con- 
trary the  evidence  for  a  calamitous  degeneration.  We 
know  that  despite  the  modern  discovery  and  applica- 
tion of  sanitation,  sewage  disposal  plants,  water  puri- 
fication plants,  the  universal  use  of  germicidal  and 
prophylactic  agents,  the  tremendous  advances  of  medi- 
cine and  surgery,  the  world-wide  spread  of  education, 
the  establishment  of  government  departments  for  the 
inspection  and  control  of  foods  and  drugs,  etc.,  etc.,  etc., 
there  has  been  a  constant  increase  of  insanity  and  dis- 
ease. In  medical  circles  pessimistic  alarms  are  sounded 
sporadically  concerning  the  rapid  increase  of  cancer, 
diabetes,  B  right's  disease,  heart  disease,  hardening  of 
the  arteries,  syphilis,  etc.,  etc. 

Let  Haeckel  himself  testify.  He  says  ("The  Won- 
ders of  Life,"  1904,  p.  61) :  "The  modern  science  of 
evolution  has  shown  that  there  never  was  any  such 
creation  (as  recorded  in  the  first  article  of  the  Creed), 
but  that  the  universe  is  eternal  and  the  law  of  sub- 
stance all-ruling.,,  He  says  (p.  71):  "When  man's 
evolution  from  a  series  of  other  mammals  was  proved 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  311 

the  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  freedom  of 
the  will,  and  God,  lost  its  last  support.' ' 

He  says  (p.  114) :  "Many  diseases  .  .  .  are  making 
appalling  progress ;  neurasthenia,  especially,  and  other 
diseases  of  the  nerves,  carry  orT  more  victims  every 
year.  Our  asylums  grow  bigger  and  more  numerous 
every  year  .  .  ."  He  says  (p.  119) :  "In  Europe  we 
have  at  least  2,000,000  lunatics."  Consequently,  he  ar- 
gues (pp.  112,  114,  115,  119),  that  man  has  an  unques- 
tionable right  to  end  his  sufferings  by  suicide;  that 
we  are  justified  by  the  use  of  a  dose  of  painless  and 
rapid  poison,  morphia,  for  instance,  in  killing  lunatics, 
sufferers  from  cancer  and  other  diseases,  cripples,  deaf 
mutes,  etc. 

"Organic  life,"  he  says  (p.  130),  "is  nothing  but  a 
purely  chemical  process."  And  then  he  leaps  to  the 
evidences  of  modern  degeneracy  as  if  he  had  forgotten 
the  to-be-desired  significance  of  the  so-called  Nean- 
derthal skeletal  remains  as  evidence  of  an  ascending 
evolution.  He  describes  races  now  living  as  "approach- 
ing nearest  to  the  ape,  woolly-haired,  flat-nosed,  black 
or  dark  brown  color,  with  pointed  belly,  thin  and  short 
legs,  without  homes,  living  in  forests,  caverns  and 
trees,  are  the  Weedas  of  Ceylon,  the  Semangs  of  the 
Malay  Peninsula,  the  Negrites  of  the  Philippines,  the 
Andamine  Islanders,  the  Kimos  of  Madagascar,  the 
Akkas  of  Guinea,  the  Bushmen  of  South  Africa. 
Others,  approaching  closely  to  the  anthropoid  apes, 
still  live  in  various  parts  of  the  primitive  forests  of  the 
Sunda  Islands  (Borneo,  Sumatra,  Celebes).  They  are 
from  four  to  four  and  a  half  feet  high;  the  women 
sometimes  only  three  to  three  and  a  half  feet.  The 
value  of  their  lives  is  like  that  of  the  anthropoid  apes, 
or  very  little  higher."  And  so  he  goes  on  to  the  living 
Australian  Negroes  and  Tasmanians,  the  Ainos  of 
Japan,  the  Hottentots,  Fuegians,  Macas,  and  some  of 


312  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

the  forest  races  of  Brazil.  Little  higher  than  these  he 
places  the  inhabitants  of  Todas,  Nagas,  Curumbas, 
etc.,  of  India,  the  Nicobar  Islanders,  the  Samoyeds, 
the  Kamtschadles,  the  Negroes  of  Damara  in  Africa 
and  most  of  the  Indian  tribes  of  North  and  South 
America.  Concerning  the  Fuegians,  mentioned  above, 
Darwin  gives  to  Haeckel  the  lie  direct.  (See  "Descent 
of  Man,"  second  edition,  New  York,  p.  65). 

Haeckel  doesn't  recognize  that  he  is  speaking  of 
degeneration  and  so  proceeds  with  his  list  of  lower  bar- 
barians now  living  in  Asia  (Mundas,  Khonds,  Paharias, 
Bheels,  etc.),  the  Dyaks  of  Borneo,  the  Kaffirs,  Bechuan- 
as  and  Basutos,  the  Aborigines  of  New  Guinea,  New 
Caledonia,  New  Hebrides,  New  Zealand,  Nicaragua, 
Guatemala.  Far  below  the  so-called  "higher  develop- 
ment" of  the  civilized  ape-man  he  places  the  Calmucks 
of  Asia,  the  Ashantists,  Fantists,  Fellahs,  Shilluks, 
Mombuttus,  Owampos,  etc.  of  Africa;  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Fiji,  Tonga,  Samoa,  and  Markesas  Islands.  To 
the  same  class  he  assigns  the  Lapps  of  Europe  of  200 
years  ago,  the  Germans  of  2,000  years  ago,  the  Romans 
before  Numa  and  the  Greeks  of  the  Homeric  period. 

Not  with  a  few  old  bones  is  he  dealing — a  few  old 
bones  of  negroid  races  described  as  "missing  links/' — 
but  with  living  human  creatures,  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands, millions  of  them.  Why,  then,  do  the  Haeckel- 
ites  of  this  generation  resort  to  a  rowboat  load  of  muti- 
lated skull-caps,  fragments  of  thigh  bones  and  grossly 
defective  skeletal  remnants  to  support  their  theory  of 
an  ascending  evolution  from  the  ape  when  here,  now, 
alive  in  the  world,  they  find  countless  millions  of  over- 
whelming proofs  of  universal  degeneration  from  the 
ideal  primitive  described  in  the  words:  "AND  GOD 
CREATED  MAN  TO  HIS  OWN  IMAGE :  TO  THE 
IMAGE  OF  GOD  HE  CREATED  HIM :  MALE  AND 
FEMALE  HE  CREATED  THEM.,, 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

The  Evolution  of  Evolutions 

The  evolution  of  evolutions — The  evolution  of  corruption — The  right  of 
might. 

The  evolution  of  socialism  based  on  the  biological 
foundations  of  society;  the  evolution  of  a  " world 
state";  the  evolution  of  the  views  of  Bernhardi  and 
other  "biological  militarists, ' '  that  the  most  powerful, 
domineering  and  combative  are  the  fittest  socially,  have 
closely  followed  not  so  much  the  scientific  " progress' ' 
of  the  nineteenth  century  but  rather  the  curious  views 
of  the  popularizers  of  scientific  theory.  Let  us  trace 
the  progressive  stages  of  this  evolution  toward  the 
most  calamitous  war  of  history. 

Enthusiasm  for  scientific  achievements  grew  so  rap- 
idly during  the  last  half  of  the  last  century  that  the 
plain  people  came  to  believe  that  through  the  influence 
of  scientific  knowledge  the  whole  world  was  about  to 
undergo  an  extraordinary  transformation  in  which  dis- 
ease, pain  and  poverty  would  be  wiped  out ;  in  which 
comfort,  pleasure  and  freedom  from  labor  would 
abound. 

Carlton  J.  H.  Hayes,  associate  professor  of  history, 
Columbia  University,  says  ("Political  and  Social  His- 
tory of  Modern  Europe,"  1918,  vol.  II,  p.  232) :  "The 
practical  scientists  were  frankly  materialistic  in  their 
aims :  their  kingdom  was  of  this  world,  not  of  a  world 
beyond  the  grave.  Some  of  them  even  went  so  far  as 
to  maintain  that  crime  and  wrong-doing  could  be  ex- 

313 


314  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tirpated  by  means  of  surgery  or  of  scientific  breeding.' ' 
Man  was  very  old  (sic).  The  Bible  had  deceived  (sic) 
him  by  telling  him  he  was  very  young.  Thus  he  had 
been  prevented  (sic)  from  learning  what  he  should  have 
learned. 

Charles  Darwin,  a  youth  of  twenty-three  years,  em- 
barking, 1831,  as  a  naturalist  on  a  surveying  vessel,  the 
H.M.S.  Beagle,  and  looking  forward  to  a  voyage  of  five 
years  in  the  South  Sea  Islands  and  Brazil,  did  not  real- 
ize, as  he  became  more  and  more  interested  in  the  ideas 
of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  concerning  the  geological  evi- 
dences of  the  "antiquity  of  man,"  what  a  tremendous 
impetus  he  was  to  give  to  the  forces  of  war.  Darwin 
never  ceases  to  refer  to  Lyell  in  all  his  writings,  with 
an  enthusiasm  never  checked.  A  single  instance  will 
suffice  from  "The  Origin  of  Species,"  vol.  2,  chapter 
10:  ".  .  .  read  Sir  Charles  Lyell 's  grand  work  on  the 
Principles  of  Geology  which  the  future  historian  will 
recognize  as  having  produced  a  revolution  in  natural 
science.' ' 

Ly ell's  "Principles  of  Geology"  appeared  1830,  when 
Darwin  was  twenty-two  years  of  age.  Lyell 's  conclu- 
sion was  that  the  continuous  operation  of  geological 
processes  (volcanic  eruptions,  rivers  wearing  away 
their  banks,  etc.)  over  an  almost  incalculable  period  of 
time,  would  be  sufficient  to  explain  how  the  earth  had 
assumed  its  present  physical  appearance.  This  con- 
clusion spread  like  flame  in  straw,  and  with  it  the  accep- 
tance of  inferences  which  made  the  Bible  look  like  the 
Official  Organ  of  Falsehood.  True  to  Darwin's  proph- 
ecy it  produced  a  revolution  but  not  altogether  like 
the  revolution  which  Darwin  anticipated. 

The  geologists,  eagerly  adopting  Lyell 's  views,  be- 
gan to  give  to  man  an  age  of  at  least  1,000,000  years, 
and  to  the  world  an  age  of  "many"  millions  of  years. 
So  rapid  was  the  growth  of  this  idea  that  by  1872 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  315 

Lyell's  work  had  gone  through  eleven  different  editions, 
and  had  provided  the  "enemies  of  religion' '  with  an 
arsenal  of  "scientific"  shells  to  hurl  at  the  "six  days" 
of  the  Bible.  The  "struggle  for  existence"  was  al- 
ready a  phrase,  galloping  on  its  way  to  war. 

Darwin,  captivated  by  the  "evidence"  for  great  an- 
tiquity, had  also  been  tremendously  impressed  by  the 
Essay  on  Population,  published  1798  by  Thomas  Robert 
Malthus.  Mai  thus  emphasized  the  idea  that  the  in- 
crease of  population  was  dependent  upon  a  "struggle 
for  existence."  He  held  that  there  must  always  be 
poverty  because  there  is  not  enough  wealth  to  . 
around.  Food  increased  merely  in  an  arithmetical 
progression,  whereas  the  human  family  increased  at  a 
geometrical  rate.  If  the  poor  were  given  higher  wagi 
they  would  have  still  larger  families,  so  that  there 
would  be  more  mouths  to  feed  and  as  much  poverty  as 
ever.  Because  the  world's  food  supply  could  not  keep 
pace  with  its  population  vice  and  crime  were  necessary 
checks  on  the  increase  of  numbers.  This  idea  was 
evolving  at  a  rate  of  speed  never  before  observed.  We 
shall  follow  it — into  chaos. 

Impressed  by  the  "struggle  for  existence,"  Dar- 
win thought  that  by  applying  the  principle  of  Malthus 
to  the  whole  organic  world  he  could  utilize  the  applica- 
tion to  explain  the  variation  of  species.  June,  1842,  at 
the  age  of  thirty-three,  he  sketched  his  new  theory  of 
biological  evolution  which  was  to  be  given  to  the  world 
simultaneously  by  himself  and  Alfred  Russell  Walla  i 
sixteen  years  later,  1858. 

The  idea  of  Malthus  was  thus  in  process  of  evolution 
from  political  economy  to  a  biological  form.  The  po 
litical  economists  under  the  influence  of  the  new  doc- 
trine were  stressing  the  idea  that  each  man  should  be 
concerned  only  with  his  own  game  and  should  let  others 
shift  for  themselves,  for  the  reason  that  each  man  knew 


316  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

best  how  to  take  care  of  himself  under  the  operation 
of  the  bio-chemic  impulses  which  controlled  his  con- 
duct, and  that,  therefore,  if  all  individuals  were  thus 
well  taken  care  of  by  themselves  the  State  would  be 
prosperous. 

The  old  idea  of  "he  who  helps  others  also  helps  him- 
self "  was  evolving  into  a  new  form:  "He  who  helps 
himself  helps  others."  In  this  manner  a  "scientific" 
justification  of  selfishness  on  a  grand  scale  was  pre- 
paring the  public  mind  for  the  reception  of  all  the  no- 
tions that  were  to  be  poured  out  upon  them  ready  made 
through  the  scientific  phrase,  "the  survival  of  the  fit- 
test." 

Man  had  already  achieved  liberty  and  was  now  seek- 
ing the  kind  of  happiness  and  prosperity  that  science, 
wedded  to  enlightened  selfishness,  surely  could  and 
would  provide.  The  misery  and  unrest  which  had  de- 
veloped with  the  proposition  that  "private  interest  is 
the  great  source  of  public  good"  knew  no  bounds.  "It 
was  expected,"  says  Professor  Hayes,  "that  the 
achievement  of  liberty,  happiness  and  prosperity  would 
be  attained.  And  truly  Great  Britain,  whose  industry 
was  most  completely  emancipated,  grew  very  wealthy ; 
her  capitalists  were  more  prosperous,  and  her  factor- 
ies and  ships  more  numerous  than  those  of  any  other 
nation.  The  fruits  of  liberty  seemed  to  be  as  precious 
as  the  golden  apples  of  ancient  fable. 

"Yet  along  with  the  golden  apples,  the  tree  of  lib- 
erty brought  forth  bitter  and  unsightly  fruit  for  the 
workers.  The  early  factories  were  ugly,  ill-ventilated, 
poorly  lighted,  and  unsanitary  buildings,  hastily  and 
cheaply  built.  'In  these  dingy  buildings,  choked  with 
dust  and  worn  with  overwork,  the  English  freemen  en- 
joyed to  the  utmost  the  blessed  privilege  of  freedom 
of  contract. '  In  the  mines,  too,  women  and  children 
worked  along  with  the  men.     Women  and  girls  were 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  317 

harnessed  to  coal-carts,  creeping  on  all  fours  through 
the  low-roofed  galleries  of  the  coal  mines. 

"In  the  early  nineteenth  century  a  great  crusade  was 
preached  in  England  against  negro  slavery,  and  slave 
owners  in  British  colonies  were  forbidden  to  work  their 
slaves  more  than  nine  hours  a  day,  or  six  hours  for 
children. 

"But  the  white  citizens  of  Great  Britain  received  no 
such  protection.  There  was  a  law  by  which  pauper 
children,  five  and  six  years  old,  were  taken  from  their 
homes,  sent  from  parish  to  parish  to  work  in  factories, 
and  bought  and  sold  in  gangs  like  slaves. 

"In  the  factories  they  were  set  to  work  without  pay, 
the  cheapest  of  food  being  all  they  could  earn.  If  th< 
refused  to  work,  irons  were  put  around  their  ankles, 
and  they  were  chained  to  the  machine,  and  at  night  they 
were  locked  up  in  the  sleeping-huts.  The  working  day 
was  long — from  five  or  six  in  the  morning  till  nine  or 
ten  at  night.  Often  the  children  felt  their  arms  ache 
with  fatigue  and  their  eyelids  grow  heavy  with  sleep, 
but  they  were  kept  awake  by  the  whip  of  the  overseer. 
Many  of  the  little  children  died  of  overwork,  and  others 
were  carried  off  by  the  diseases  which  were  bred  by 
filth,  fatigue,  and  insufficient  food. 

"When  the  attention  of  factory-owners  was  drawn  to 
these  conditions,  they  replied  that  business  would  not 
pay  if  employees  worked  less  or  received  larger  wag' 
that  no  employer  would  intentionally  misuse  his  em- 
ployees, and  that  anyway  it  was  wrong  for  government 
to  meddle  with  a  man's  private  business.  With  this  an- 
swer they  dismissed  the  problem,  and  would  do  noth- 
ing to  relieve  the  suffering  of  the  workers  in  factory 
or  mine.  What  few  measures  were  enacted  to  restrict 
child  labor  and  to  improve  factory  conditions  in  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  the  work  of 
Tory  landowners,  not  of  Liberal  factory-owners.    The 


318  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

reforms  were  trifling,  however,  and  the  working  classes 
everywhere  seemed  to  be  sinking  into  abject  poverty. 
Instead  of  a  boon  to  mankind,  machinery  appeared  to 
be  bnt  a  cruel  instrument  of  oppression  in  the  hands 
of  conscienceless  capitalists.' ' 

This  was  the  setting  in  which  Darwin's  ideas  were 
framed — the  condition  behind  the  state  of  public  mind 
into  which  he  projected  them.  Robert  Owen  was  work- 
ing out  his  socialistic  ideas  at  New  Lanark,  Scotland, 
and  although  he  had  startled  society  by  his  "  model 
community,"  its  very  success,  built  around  an  unceas- 
ing attack  upon  Christianity  and  marriage,  had  so  far 
decayed  that  by  1858  it  was  already  clear  that  society 
would  not  be  reorganized  according  to  the  Owen 
scheme.  Owen  died,  1858,  as  Darwin's  work  was  about 
to  be  given  to  the  world,  and  with  it  a  new  conception 
of  "conscience"  destined  to  corrupt  such  morals  as 
civilization  could  still  boast  of. 

Darwin  was  teaching  ("Descent  of  Man,"  Appleton, 
1920,  Part  1,  Chap.  IV)  that  the  moral  sense  had  been 
acquired  by  man  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  "the  more 
enduring  social  instincts  conquer  the  less  persistent 
instincts.  At  the  moment  of  action  man  will  no  doubt 
be  apt  to  follow  the  stronger  impulse ;  and  though  this 
may  occasionally  prompt  him  to  the  noblest  deeds,  it 
will  far  more  commonly  lead  him  to  gratify  his  own 
desires  at  the  expense  of  other  men.  But  after  this 
gratification,  when  past  and  weaker  impressions  are 
contrasted  with  the  ever-enduring  social  instincts,  ret- 
ribution will  surely  come.  Man  will  then  feel  dissatis- 
fied with  himself  and  will  resolve,  with  more  or  less 
force,  to  act  differently  for  the  future.  This  is  con- 
science ;  for  conscience  looks  backward  and  judges  past 
actions,  inducing  that  kind  of  dissatisfaction  which,  if 
weak,  we  call  regret,  and  if  severe,  remorse."  ("De- 
scent of  Man,"  Appleton,  1920,  Part  1,  Chap.  IV). 


Courtesy  Zoological  Society. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Haeckel  delighted  in  describing  this  as  the  "foot'1  from  which 
the  human  foot  evolved.  Note  extraordinary  grasping  ca- 
pacity of  this  "foot."  (Gorilla.)  Also  grasp  this.  It 
is  popularly  believed  that  the  wave  of  materialism  in  which 
the  world  is  now  steeped,  originated  early  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  when  it  became  the  fashion  to  explain  life  on  this 
planet  by  resorting  to  combinations  of  atoms,  spontaneous 
generation,  creation  by  chance,  etc.,  all  of  which  is  quite 
ancient,  and  not  modern  at  all.  In  the  epistle  of  Athanasius, 
vol.  1,  p.  37,  Newman 's  translation,  1911  edition,  you  will  tint 
this:  "For  though  nil  things  be  >:ii.|  to  be  from  Gk>d  in 
that  they  exist  not  at  random  or  spontaneously,  mo-  come  int" 
being  by  chance,  according  to  those  philosophers  who  n 
them  to  a  combination  of  atoms  and  to  elements  which  are 
homogeneous,  etc.*'  Again  you  will  find,  p.  126  of  the  same 
work:  "Do  you  not  open  the  door  to  Greek  atheism,  to  :i 
creation   by   chance   or    by   atoms''       There    is    indeed    much 


nrijlnn^o      r* +'      flm 


llltl.lll   it\- 


+  i, 


1 1. ■, i    1 1 1 i.t i i-i i -i 1 1 '    it) 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  319 

Darwin  made  no  effort  in  his  scientific  dismissal 
of  the  moral  sense  or  in  his  scientific  definition 
of  conscience,  to  account  for  the  remorse  experienced 
in  the  gratification  of  desires  that  are  not  at  the  expense 
of  society  but  merely  a  source  of  pleasure  to  the  indi- 
vidual— not  alone  acts,  but  even  thoughts  that  the  in- 
dividual knows  to  be  wrong.  For  such  thoughts  the  in- 
dividual is  not  answerable  to  society.  Carnal  pleasures 
derived  merely  through  the  mind  have  not  injured  so- 
ciety, and  yet  the  individual  feels  that  he  is  guilty  and 
that  he  is  answerable  for  his  guilt. 

Even  Wallace  recognized  the  absurdity  of  this  effort 
of  Darwin  to  make  conscience  a  matter  of  mechanics 
or  enemies  and  points  ("  Natural  Selection,"  pp.  353- 
355)  to  the  horror  for  lying — even  where  a  lie  would 
benefit  them — of  certain  hill  tribes  in  Central  India. 

Darwin  did  not  accept  the  fact  that  an  individual, 
feeling  that  he  has  done  an  injury  to  others,  recognizes 
thereby  the  difference  between  justice  and  injustice, 
between  right  and  wrong,  and  that  his  dissatisfaction, 
or  remorse,  is  consequently  based  upon  his  own  self- 
inflicted  outrage  against  his  own  sense  of  right  and 
wrong. 

Darwin's  argument  was  that  conscience  proceeded 
from  the  dissatisfaction  instead  of  the  dissatisfaction 
proceeding  from  conscience.  This  argument  was  neces- 
sary if  biology  and  evolution  were  to  take  the  place  of 
conscience  and  God. 

The  Evolution  of  Corruption 

With  the  brutalizing  of  the  industrial  masses  and  the 
rapid  spread  of  a  materialistic  conception  of  the  moral 
sense,  a  mechanical  conception  of  conscience,  a  bio- 
logical conception  of  right  and  wrong,  a  selfish  con- 
ception of  expediency  Thomas  Huxley  fonnd  no  small 


320  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

audience  for  his  " Man's  Place  in  Nature,' '  published 
1863,  in  which  he  sought  to  demonstrate  that  man  him- 
self was  but  a  transitional  stage  in  the  natural  evolu- 
tion from  lower  to  higher  type.  Like  Herbert  Spencer, 
he  championed  "The  New  Darwinism,' '  and  set  out 
with  the  avowed  purpose  of  attacking  the  foundation 
of  revealed  religion,  declaring  that  "there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  such  a  being  as  the  God  of 
the  theologians,"  rejecting  Christianity  with  no  ap- 
preciation of  its  historical  effect  as  a  socializing  and 
civilizing  force. 

Herbert  Spencer,  with  the  publication  of  his  "Syn- 
thetic Philosophy,"  1860,  denying  that  man  had  a  soul, 
contributed  greatly  to  the  wave  of  materialism  and 
agnosticism. 

Huxley,  crying  out  against  the  absurd  moral  code 
of  Christianity  and  the  preposterous  doctrine  of  free 
will,  undertook,  with  the  support  of  evolution,  as  he 
saw  fit  to  twist  it  to  his  purposes,  to  establish  the  reign 
of  scientific  atheism.  Biological  phenomena  were  hence- 
forth to  justify  whatsoever  enormities  of  conduct  the 
world  might  witness,  and  the  world  was  not  resisting 
the  new  "enlightenment,"  the  new  "progress"  of 
science. 

The  outstanding  revolutionary  influences  in  Eng- 
land and  the  mile-posts  in  their  progress  were  Thomas 
Malthus,  1798-1803,  Charles  Lyell,  1830-1833,  Charles 
Darwin,  1842-1858-1871,  Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  1858, 
Herbert  Spencer,  1860,  and  Thomas  Huxley,  1863.  Of 
course  there  were  others  of  lesser  brilliance,  but  these 
were  the  luminous  energies  pushing  evolution  into  war. 

Huxley's  substitute  for  freedom  of  will  was  the  doc- 
trine of  "fatalism  in  conduct  based  on  natural  evolu- 
tion." 

' '  The  actions  we  call  sinful, ' '  he  said,  * l  are  part  and 
parcel  of  the  struggle  for  existence.    The  moral  sense 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  321 

is  a  very  complex  affair — dependent  in  part  upon  asso- 
ciations of  pleasure  and  pain,  approbation  and  disap- 
probation, formed  by  education  in  early  youth,  but  in 
part  also  on  an  innate  sense  of  moral  beauty  and  ugli- 
ness (how  originated  need  not  be  discussed),  which  is 
possessed  by  some  people  in  great  strength  while  some 
are  totally  devoid  of  it. ' '  Sin  was  an  external  symptom 
of  bio-chemic  activity  no  more  controllable  than  the 
fires  of  a  volcano  or  the  sweep  of  a  tidal  flood.  Scorch- 
ing the  heights  or  submerging  the  depths  it  was  merely 
a  chemical  symbol  in  process  of  formulation,  the  chem- 
ical symbol  of  the  most  stupendous  conflict  of  all  time 
and  the  possible  forerunner  of  another,  more  terrible, 
to  come. 

Contributing  to  these  generalizations  of  science  in 
Germany  were  Ernst  Haeckel  and  scores  of  lesser 
lights  appearing  suddenly  like  froth  in  the  wake  of  a 
battleship  and  disappearing  just  as  suddenly  only  to 
be  followed  by  more  and  more  and  more.  In  France 
Ernest  Renan,  with  his  contemporaries  and  followers, 
carried  on  the  movement.  Nearly  all  rejected  the  Bible 
or  ignored  it.  Many  assailed  Christ ;  all  declared  them- 
selves champions  of  ' '  Darwinism. ' '  Obviously  Darwin- 
ism, attracting  students,  physicians,  lawyers,  states- 
men, even  tradesmen,  to  its  new  evolutionary  concep- 
tion, began  to  be  associated  w7ith  violent  outbreaks,  in 
the  name  of  "enlightenment"  and  "progress"  against 
all  religion. 

For  a  time  Protestantism  seemed  to  be  doomed  by  the 
new  Darwinism.  Catholic  faith  suffered  less,  for  it 
was  based  on  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers  and  on 
tradition,  as  well  as  on  the  Bible,  but  Protestants  held 
that  the  Scriptures  constituted  their  sole  rule  of  faith 
and  their  sole  guide  of  conduct.  Hence  when  scientific 
theories,  "evidence,"  "demonstrations,"  seemed  to 
"prove"  that  the  Bible  was  a  mad  jumble  of  errors  the 


322  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Protestant  conception  of  religion  received  a  terrific 
shock. 

The  vagueness  with  which  the  theory  of  evolution 
was  surrounded  (and  still  is),  the  necessity  of  not  ex- 
amining its  details  too  closely  and  the  multitude  of 
fresh  objections  which  it  proposed,  in  those  "biologi- 
cal" days,  against  faith  and  revelation  all  tended  to 
make  it  popular  with  a  certain  class  of  scientific  men 
and  popularizers  of  science. 

The  mysterious  Unknowable,  to  which  Herbert  Spen- 
cer consigns  the  inexplicable  riddles,  conundrums,  en- 
igmas, and  dilemmas  of  science,  standing  in  the  back- 
ground of  the  mighty  energies  of  nature,  made  a  com- 
fortable substitute  for  any  religion  which  imposed  re- 
straint on  human  conduct.  Agnosticism  and  indirTer- 
entism  began  to  flourish.  As  Christianity  and  science 
were  "wholly  incompatible, ' '  there  was  no  longer  any 
room  in  the  world  for  old-fashioned  faith. 

The  Catholic  Church  sought  to  meet  this  drift  toward 
materialism  by  emphasizing  in  all  Catholic  seminaries 
and  colleges  the  writings  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  who 
taught  that  natural  law  and  supernatural  religion  could 
not  be  in  ultimate  conflict  because  both  were  from  one 
and  the  same  God,  and  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  actu- 
ally forearmed  the  Christian  world  against  the  assault 
of  Darwinism  by  declaring  hundreds  of  years  before 
Darwinism  was  born  that  it  mattered  not  at  all  whether 
natural  creation  had  been  effected  by  one  original  di- 
vine act  or  by  an  infinite  succession  of  divine  acts. 

Louis  Pasteur  and  Gregor  Mendel,  the  one  a  Catholic 
lay  scientist,  the  other  a  Catholic  priest,  were  demon- 
strating quietly  by  their  scientific  discoveries  in  bac- 
teriology and  biology  that  the  Catholic  Church  no 
longer  feared  that  there  could  be  any  irreconcilable 
conflict  between  natural  science  and  religion. 

Leo  XIII,  standing  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  storm  that 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  323 

was  shaking  the  foundations  of  society,  announced, 
1879,  that  all  truths  were  to  be  gratefully  received  re- 
gardless of  whence  they  came.  Moreover  he  threw 
open  to  the  students  of  the  world  the  doors  of  the  Vati- 
can archives  and  library  so  that  the  publication  of  its 
ancient  documents  might  reveal  the  contributions  of 
the  Church  to  the  development  of  human  civilization. 
At  his  own  expense  he  equipped  the  Vatican  observa- 
tory with  costly  astronomical  instruments,  establish- 
ing a  staff  of  scientists  and  maintaining  their  activ- 
ities. 

Science  for  the  most  part  seemed  to  have  forgotten 
the  Abbe  Lazzaro  Spallanzani,  who  died  at  Pavia,  Feb- 
ruary 12, 1799,  after  an  extraordinary  career  as  priest, 
logician,  metaphysician  and  biologist.  The  scientific 
achievements  of  this  forerunner  of  Louis  Pasteur  were 
so  great  that  he  was  actually  made  a  member  of  acad- 
emies and  learned  societies  in  London,  Madrid,  Stock- 
holm, Upsala,  Gottingen,  Lyons,  Holland,  Bologna, 
Milan,  Siena,  Turin,  Padua  Manchua,  Geneva  and 
Berlin. 

Ernst  Haeckel  had  not  forgotten  this  man  for  the 
very  good  reason  that  Louis  Pasteur  wouldn't  let  him, 
although  Haeckel,  "to  show  his  fairness,"  refers  to 
Spallanzani  in  his  "The  Wonders  of  Life,"  as  having 
done  something  very  extraordinary  in  the  year  1(>S7, 
which  happened  to  be  precisely  42  years  before  Spal- 
lanzani was  born. 

If  the  reader  would  determine  for  himself  how  truly 
ridiculous,  how  superficial  and  shallow  Haeckel  could 
be,  he  need  only  refer  to  pages  349-353  of  the  1904  edi- 
tion of  "The  Wonders  of  Life,"  published  by  Harper 
&  Brothers,  New  York  and  London. 

Haeckel  admits  that  the  Abbe  Spallanzani  showed  in 
1687  that  "no  unicellular  organisms  appear  in  infu- 
sions of  decomposing  organic  matter  if  these  infusions 


324  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

are  well  boiled  and  the  vessel  carefully  closed.  The 
boiling  kills  the  germs  in  them  and  the  exclusion  of  air 
prevents  the  entrance  of  fresh  germs. ' ' 

Haeckel  realized  that  this  demonstration  of  Spal- 
lanzani  completely  shattered  the  evolutionist's  theory 
of  spontaneous  generation.  There  was  nothing  to  do 
but  face  the  fact  and  to  describe  sympathetically  what 
Haeckel  himself  must,  therefore,  characterize  as  "the 
famous  experiments  of  Pasteur/ '  which  ended  in  the 
maxim,  "Spontaneous  generation  is  a  myth." 

Haeckel  pays  tremendous  tribute  to  Rudolf  Virchow, 
Louis  Pasteur,  and  other  "famous  biologists  and  bac- 
teriologists/'  actually  glorying  in  the  scientific  fact 
that  "Pasteur  showed  convincingly  that  organisms 
never  appear  in  infusions  of  organic  substances  when 
they  are  sufficiently  boiled  and  the  atmosphere  that 
reaches  them  has  been  chemically  purified. ' '  He  even 
admits  that  "Pasteur's  rigorous  experiments"  yielded 
results  "which  were  confirmed  by  Robert  Koch  and 
other  bacteriologists,  giving  rise  to  the  modern  pre- 
cautions as  to  disinfection. ' '  Yet  Haeckel  did  not  long 
conceal  the  purpose  of  his  flattery  of  Spallanzani, 
forty-two  years  before  the  latter  was  born,  and  of 
Pasteur,  who,  then  living,  was  too  great  a  man  to  chal- 
lenge in  battle  at  a  time  when  all  living  scientists  were 
acclaiming  the  truth  of  his  extraordinary  achieve- 
ments. 

Haeckel  did  not  dare  attack  Pasteur  directly,  as  was 
his  custom  in  attacking  God,  yet  for  the  sake  of  evo- 
lution there  had  to  be  an  attack.  Could  anything  have 
been  more  skilfully  devised  than  the  method  of  attack 
which  Haeckel  finally  adopted?  First,  flattery  of  the 
scientific  achievements  of  a  dead  priest  about  whom 
Haeckel  knew  so  little  to  flatter  that  he  had  him  break- 
ing out  all  over  with  a  rash  forty-two  years  before  he 
was  born.    Then,  extraordinary  praise  for  a  living  sci- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  325 

entist  of  similar  religious  views  and  belief  in  God  . 
those  in  which  the  dead  priest  died.  Finally,  the  fol- 
lowing' (from  pages  352,  353,  "The  Wonders  of  Life,' 
American  edition,  1904):  "The  great  popularity  of 
the  famous  experiments  of  Pasteur  on  spontaneous 
generation,  and  the  unfortunate  confusion  of  ideas 
which  was  caused  by  the  false  interpretation  of  his  re- 
sults, make  it  necessary  for  me  to  say  a  word  on  the 
general  value  of  scientific  experiments  in  many  ques- 
tions. 

"The  much-admired  experiments  of  Pasteur  and  his 
colleagues  prove  merely  that  in  certain  artificial  con- 
ditions infusoria  are  not  formed  in  decomposing  or- 
ganic compound  or  the  dead  tissues  of  highly  organ- 
ized histona;  they  cannot  possibly  prove  that  sapro- 
boses  (birth  of  living  from  putrid  matter)  of  this  kind 
do  not  take  place  under  other  conditions." 

The  Spallanzani-Pasteur  facts  stood  because  they 
were  "famous"  and  "much-admired' '  and  of  "great 
popularity,"  but,  says  Haeckel,  in  a  whisper,  they 
don't  mean  anything,  and  Darwinism  is  quite  safe. 

In  the  meantime  Darwin  himself  had  become  con- 
scious of  the  fact  that  the  rapidly  growing  conception 
of  "Darwinism"  as  the  theory  of  "Evolution'  was 
a  misnomer,  even  though  as  such  it  had  taken  deep 
root  and  found  an  almost  irremovable  lodgment  in  the 
public  mind.  He  was  quite  as  conscious  of  the  law  of 
retrogression  and  of  the  degeneracy  of  species  and 
races  and  of  the  universally  active  tendencies  of  retro- 
gression and  degeneracy  as  he  was  conscious  of  the  law 
of  progression. 

He  knew  that  the  surviving  type  was  not  by  any 
means  the  most  perfect  type.  He  knew  that  both  in 
the  animal  and  the  vegetable  kingdoms  the  student 
everywhere  meets  with  variations  of  species  and  races, 
and  that  these  variations  are  imprisoned  within  well 


326  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

defined  lines.  He  knew  that  nature  does  not  blunder; 
that  the  germ  of  every  species  of  plant  and  of  every 
species  of  animal  will  develop  along  the  lines  of  the 
species  in  accordance  with  a  law  as  fixed  as  the  law  of 
gravitation. 

He  knew  that  the  human  germ  from  its  primary  cell 
develops  always  toward  the  formation  of  a  human  being 
and  that  in  every  stage  of  its  growth  it  is  always  hu- 
man, never  bovine  or  simian.  He  knew  that  the  only 
warrant  for  the  theory  of  the  specific  origin  of  man 
as  the  product  of  evolution  from  lower  forms  of  ani- 
mal life  was  an  inference  and  nothing  else,  and  that  this 
inference,  drawn  from  another  set  of  inferences,  was 
plausible  only  when  certain  contradictions  and  inex- 
plicable phenomena  were  wholly  ignored.  He  knew 
that  no  theory  of  evolution  was  adequate  to  explain  the 
rational  and  spiritual  side  of  man's  nature.  Even 
Herbert  Spencer  (" First  Principles/'  London  edition, 
p.  557)  acknowledged  a  guiding  and  directing  power — 
"a  power  of  which  the  nature  remains  forever  incon- 
ceivable and  to  which  no  limits  in  time  or  space  can  be 
imagined,  working  in  us  certain  effects. ' '  Wallace  him- 
self ("  Darwinism,  an  Exposition  of  the  Theory  of  Na- 
tural Selection,"  1889,  chap,  xvii),  admitted  that  the 
mathematical  faculty  in  man,  the  musical  faculty,  the 
metaphysical  faculty,  the  art  faculty,  the  faculty  of 
wit  and  humor,  could  by  no  possible  arrangement  have 
been  the  outcome  of  Natural  Selection,  but  that  all 
man's  higher  faculties  pointed  clearly  to  an  unseen 
world  guiding  and  directing  the  visible  world. 

Notwithstanding  these  stumbling  blocks  in  the  path 
of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  popularizers  were  lug- 
ging the  biological  idea  still  further  into  sociology. 
Karl  Marx  and  Friedrich  Engels  were  voicing  their 
theories  of  "The  International." 

Marx  insisted  that  society  as  we  now  know  it  has 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  327 

been  evolved  gradually  out  of  many  class  struggles  of 
the  past;  that  the  course  of  history  has  always  been 
determined  by  economic  factors,  and  that  the  present 
capitalistic  society  will  inevitably  be  evolved  into  so- 
cialism. Thus  Marxism  became  to  social  science  what 
Darwinism  became  to  natural  science. 

In  Russia  a  group  of  intellectual  radicals  known  as 
the  Nihilists  was  recruited  from  the  universities  and 
professional  classes.  They  despised  and  denounced  the 
Orthodox  Faith  as  well  as  the  political  autocracy,  the 
social  institutions  and  the  general  backwardness  of 
Russia.  They  would  educate  the  people  to  a  proper 
appreciation  of  "enlightenment "  and  "progress."  Un- 
der the  influence  of  Darwinism  they  announced  their 
belief  in  the  infallible  evolution  of  humanity  from  au- 
tocracy to  democracy,  from  barbarism  to  culture.  Fa- 
talism brooded  over  their  counsels  with  but  one  objec- 
tive— to  hurry  the  inevitable  end. 

Militarism  was  growing.  In  1862  Prussia  intro- 
duced compulsory  military  service  for  every  able- 
bodied  male.  In  1868  Austria  Hungary  followed.  In 
1872  France  also  adopted  militarism.  In  1873  Japan 
made  a  similar  step  "forward."  In  1874  Russia  joint- 1 
the  ranks.  In  1875  Italy  added  her  name  to  the  list. 
What  these  nations  were  doing  on  land  Great  Britain 
was  doing  at  sea.  Philosophers,  scientists,  poets,  his- 
torians and  sociologists  were  justifying  nationalism 
and  militarism.  The  ideas  interlocked  and  both  rested 
on  a  "biological"  foundation. 

Seizing  the  scientific  theory  of  evolution  whicli  the 
people  by  this  time  "understood  thoroughly,"  the  new 
prophets  of  materialism  applied  it  not  only  to  the  Held 
of  biology  but  to  the  field  of  sociology,  so  that  Spencer's 
phrase  "the  survival  of  the  fittest"  was  employed 
an  explanation  of  the  birth  and  rise  of  NATIONS. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  inevitable. 


328  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

Says  Professor  Hayes  ("A  Political  and  Social  His- 
tory of  Modern  Europe,"  1918,  vol.  II,  p.  690) :  "Mili- 
tarists were  not  slow  to  utilize  a  supposedly  scientific 
doctrine  that  was  enunciated  by  scholars  and  that  was 
sure  to  secure  a  large  following  among  the  ignorant 
and  half -educated  masses  in  an  age  in  which  "  science' ' 
was  fast  becoming  a  popular  fetish.  Prominent  Euro- 
pean militarists,  with  the  authority  of  their  newly  dis- 
covered philosophy,  commenced  to  talk  less  of  the  de- 
fensive character  of  armaments  and  more  of  "the 
struggle  for  existence,"  and  of  the  advantages,  nay  the 
downright  necessity,  of  waging  war.  But  it  was  re- 
served to  General  Friedrich  von  Bernhardi,  in  1912, 
to  state  most  clearly  the  militarist's  conception  of  war 
in  the  light  of  the  new  philosophy  and  science.  "War 
is  the  father  of  all  things,"  he  quoted,  and  then  went 
on  to  say, ' l  The  sages  of  antiquity  long  before  Darwin 
recognized  this.  The  struggle  for  existence  is,  in  the 
life  of  Nature,  the  basis  of  all  healthy  development. 
All  existing  things  show  themselves  to  be  the  result  of 
contesting  forces.  So  in  the  life  of  man  the  struggle 
is  not  merely  the  destructive,  but  the  life-giving,  prin- 
ciple. .  .  .  War  gives  a  biologically  just  decision.  .  .  . 
The  knowledge,  therefore,  that  war  depends  on  biologi- 
cal laws  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  every  attempt  to 
exclude  it  from  international  relations  must  be  dem- 
onstrably untenable.  But  it  is  not  only  a  biological  law, 
but  a  moral  obligation,  and,  as  such,  an  indispensable 
factor  in  civilization. ' 9 

Darwinism  had  saturated  the  war-lords  with  all  the 
catchwords  essential  to  the  prosecution  of  their  de- 
signs and  the  people,  lured  by  the  promises  of  mad  men 
and  the  nomenclature  of  a  science  which  they  knew  only 
through  the  shallow  writings  and  lectures  of  popular- 
izers,  were  prepared  to  follow  to  the  end,  little  dream- 
ing of  the  carnage,  starvation  and  disease  toward  which 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  329 

their  "progressive"  evolution  was  now  thundering  its 
flight. 

The  Right  of  Might 

Bernhardt  statement,  "War  gives  a  biologically 
just  decision,"  will  be  found  in  "Germany  and  the  Next 
War,"  1911,  p.  23.  The  claim  that  his  books  had  little 
circulation  was  investigated,  1917,  by  the  U.  S.  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Information,  which  reported,  ("Bulle- 
tin No.  24,"  February  18,  1918),  as  follows:  "His 
'Deutschland  und  der  nachste  Krieg'  had  gone  into 
its  sixth  edition  by  February,  1913.  Die  Post,  re- 
viewing it  in  1912,  said  that  it  'engaged  the  serious  at- 
tention of  our  own  political  and — it  need  hardly  be 
added — military  circles. '  The  book  has  frequently  been 
referred  to  in  the  Reichstag  debates  and  in  the  news- 
papers. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Bernhardi  ex- 
pressed the  feeling  of  a  large  part  of  the  influential 
classes  in  Germany." 

The  application  of  the  biological  principle  "the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest"  to  the  sociological  and  political 
problems  of  nations  was  expressed  by  Professor  Las- 
son  of  the  University  of  Berlin  in  two  sentences  in  his 
"Das  Kulturideal  und  der  Krieg."  The  first,  found 
page  14,  reads  as  follows:  "Between  states  there  is 
only  one  course  of  right,  the  right  of  the  strongest- 
It  is  perfectly  reasonable  that  wars  should  arise  be- 
tween states." 

The  second,  found  page  26,  constitutes  an  elabora- 
tion of  this  biologically  scientific  idea:  "It  is  impos- 
sible that  a  state  should  commit  a  crime.  .  .  .  Not  all 
the  treaties  in  the  world  can  alter  the  fact  that  the 
weak  is  always  the  prey  of  the  stronger. ' ' 

Carrying  "the  survival  of  the  fittest"  idea  into  itfl 
most  brutal  but  none  the  less  inevitable  conclusions  he 
says,  page  35:  "The  state  (which  realizes  the  highest 


330  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

form  of  the  culture  of  the  race)  can  realize  itself  only 
by  the  destruction  of  other  states  which,  logically,  can 
only  be  brought  about  by  violence.,, 

Tracing  the  evolutionary  growth  of  the  misapplica- 
tion of  the  zoological  theory  to  its  logical  end  we  find 
the  1913  youth  of  Germany,  of  the  age  of  our  American 
Boy  Scouts,  bowing  their  heads  before  the  idea  "  WAR 
IS  THE  NOBLEST  AND  HOLIEST  EXPRESSION 
OF  HUMAN  ACTIVITY. '  >  This  declaration  is  found 
in  Jung-Deutschland,  Official  Organ  of  Young  Ger- 
many, October,  1913. 

It  was  the  popular  idea  in  the  United  States  during 
the  World  War  to  attribute  all  such  philosophy  to  the 
militarists  and  nationalists  of  Germany.  But  the  mili- 
tarists and  nationalists  of  Germany  were  merely  utiliz- 
ing the  biological  and  evolutionary  ammunition  of  other 
groups  of  thinkers  to  support  their  aims  and  purposes. 
France  and  England  were  equally  guilty  with  Germany 
in  the  dissemination  of  the  new  materialistic  philoso- 
phy. Ernst  Haeckel  in  Germany  was  duplicated  by 
Thomas  Huxley  in  England,  and  Thomas  Huxley  in 
England  had  his  counterpart  in  Ernest  Renan  in 
France. 

The  belief  that  Adam  was  a  fallen  man  capable  of 
responding  to  grace  had  given  place  to  the  idea  that 
man  was  an  exalted  ape.  The  individual  sinner,  lost 
in  the  welter  of  evolution  as  it  had  been  so  grossly  in- 
terpreted for  him  by  the  popularizers,  could  not  cry 
out :  "  I  have  sinned.  God  be  merciful  to  me,  a  sinner. ' ' 
The  penitent's  prayer  froze  upon  the  lips  of  the  ex- 
alted ape.  Where  there  could  be  no  sin,  but  only  the 
inevitable  crash  of  "the  fatalism  of  conduct,"  there 
could  neither  be  forgiveness  of  sins  nor  repentance 
for  sins. 

"It  was  the  peculiar  ability  of  Darwin  to  see  nature 
from  four  dimensions — length,  breadth,  depth  and  dur- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  331 

ation,"  says  Professor  Conklin,  but  it  certainly  was 
not  his  peculiar  ability  to  see  the  chaos  which  the  ap- 
plication of  his  theories  by  the  unscientific  popularizers 
would  bring  about  in  so  many  departments  of  human 
activity. 

Thus  the  Trinil  Ape-Man,  the  Piltdown  Man  and 
all  the  other  twisted  and  mutilated  compositions  of  the 
"  ^constructionists"  played  their  part  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  state  of  mind  prone  to  respond  to  chaos. 

True  science  had  contributed  nothing  to  this  calam- 
ity. True  science  was  not  responsible  for  it.  The  per- 
versity and  inordinate  inferences  of  men  who  masked 
their  designs  in  "scientific"  dress  found,  among  a  peo- 
ple grown  materialistic  in  their  attitude  toward  body 
and  soul,  an  all-too-ready  acceptance  of  the  "Darwin- 
ian ' '  propaganda.  ' '  With  desolation  is  the  earth  made 
desolate  because  no  man  thinketh  in  his  heart."  The 
leaders  of  the  people  do  not  so  much  lead  them  in  spite 
of  themselves  as  they  are  pushed  forward  by  an  already 
well  developed  disposition  of  the  mass.  This  is  one 
of  the  evil  signs  of  the  times,  for  the  grip  of  popular 
opinion  upon  what  is  loosely  called  "Darwinism' '  still 
persists  and  must  go  on  to  newer  terror  as  long  as  it 
persists. 

That  there  should  be  no  weakening  of  the  fascination 
of  " Darwinism, ' '  as  the  theory  of  man's  ape-origin, 
is,  to  the  writer,  the  most  disquieting  and  at  the  same 
time  most  inexplicable  phenomenon  of  the  twentieth 
century,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  preponderance 
of  scientific  evidence,  including  all  the  established  data 
and  all  the  opinions  based  on  truth  as  it  has  been 
stripped  of  error,  have  come  into  court  solidly  against 
the  ape,  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  there  remains  on 
the  side  of  the  ape  nothing  but  the  old  inferences  and 
assumptions,  nothing  but  the  old  hypotheses  and  un- 
supported theories  based  on  erroneous  or  deliberately 


332  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

fabricated  premises,  nothing  but  the  old  conflicts  and 
contradictions,  nothing  but  the  old  falsifications  and 
exposures.  In  their  choice  the  nations  have  the  alter- 
native of  chaos  or  Christ. 


Courtesy  Zoological  Societ;/. 
Photograph  by  Edwin  R.  Sanborn. 

Gorilla  forehand  in  walking  position.  Front 
view.  Is  it  to  symbolize  the  hand  of 
the  brute   laid  upon   the  world .' 


APPENDIX 

Note  on  the  Word  ' '  Day  ' ' 

With  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "day"  as 
discussed  in  chap.  XXIV.,  the  following  notes  may 
further  illuminate  the  subject. 

According  to  the  Bible  itself,  the  first  three  " days" 
of  Genesis  could  not  have  been  solar  days  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  term,  because  the  sun  itself  was  not 
created  until  the  "fourth  day."  Many  centuries  ago 
the  great  Augustine  declared  that  it  was  impossible 
to  define  the  exact  nature  of  these  pre-solar  days. 

How  can  the  rationalists  insist  that  the  biblical  word 
for  "day,"  as  used  in  Genesis,  means  a  period  of 
twenty-four  hours,  when  in  the  second  chapter,  fourth 
verse,  the  entire  period  of  "six  days"  is  referred  to 
as  "one  day"? 

"Istae  sunt  generationes  coeli  et  terrae,  quando 
creata  sunt  in  die  quo  fecit  Dominus  Deus  coelum  et 
terram — These  are  the  generations  of  the  heaven  and 
the  earth,  when  they  were  created  'in  the  day'  that 
the  Lord  God  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth." 

The  word  "day"  is  obviously  here  a  synonym  for 
"time,"  in  which  sense  it  is  frequently  employed  in 
scriptural  phrases;  as  the  "day  of  vanity,"  the  "day 
of  tribulation,"  etc. 

But  to  show  the  rationalists  that  the  word  "day," 
as  used  in  Genesis,  cannot  be  limited  to  a  term  of  twen- 
ty-four hours  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  chapter 
two,  verse  seventeen:    "But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowl- 

333 


334  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

edge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it:  for  in 
the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." 

Now,  according  to  the  genealogy,  age  and  death  of 
the  patriarchs  from  Adam  unto  Noah,  as  narrated  in 
chapter  five,  verses  three  and  four,  Adam  lived  930 
years. 

Here  is  proof,  in  the  Bible  itself,  and  in  the  very  book 
of  Genesis  quoted  by  the  rationalists,  that  "a  day" 
consisted  of  the  hundreds  of  years  between  the  fall 
of  Adam  and  his  death. 

We  ourselves  use  the  word  "day"  as  a  synonym  for 
an  indefinite  period  of  '  '  time. ' '  We  say,  John  L.  Sulli- 
van was  the  greatest  fighter  of  his  day.  Caruso  was 
the  greatest  tenor  of  his  day.  Certainly  we  do  not 
mean  by  this  that  Sullivan  and  Caruso  lived  but  a  day. 

Ecclesiastical  tradition  makes  no  effort  to  compel 
science  to  accept  the  Hebrew  word  for  "day"  in  the 
sense  of  an  ordinary  day  of  twenty-four  hours.  In  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  Athanasius  actually  an- 
ticipated the  teaching  of  Augustine  on  this  point. 
Why,  then,  do  the  rationalists  quarrel  with  a  straw 
man  of  their  own  making,  when  they  have  before  them 
the  words  of  Augustine:  "It  is  practically  impossible 
to  define  the  exact  nature  of  these  pre-solar  days"? 

Entirely  apart  from  its  significance  of  time,  secular 
historians  who  deal  neither  with  religion  nor  science 
often  refer  to  something  done  as  a  "day."  They  speak 
of  the  "day  of  Waterloo."  The  Bible  employs  the 
word  "day"  in  the  same  fashion — the  "day  of  the 
Lord,"  the  "day  of  great  wrath."  As  the  "day  of 
Waterloo"  means  the  same  thing,  the  act,  operation, 
work  or  performance,  regardless  of  duration,  so  the 
analogous  terms  "evening"  and  "morning"  may 
signify  the  completion  of  one  act  and  the  beginning  of 
another,  just  as  moderns  speak  of  the  "dawn  of  pros- 
perity" or  the  "evening  of  life." 


GOD— OB  GORILLA  335 

The  point  is:  Why  do  rationalists  quarrel  with  the 
Bible  where  there  is  no  quarrel,  except  of  their  own 
making,  and  why  do  they  not  marvel  over  the  extraor- 
dinary sequence  of  events  recorded  by  Moses  in  the 
exact  chronological  order  revealed  by  modern  science 
itself  in  its  interpretation  of  the  Record  of  the  Rocks t 

Note  on  3,000,000  Yeabs 

In  our  own  time  geologists  have  been  compelled  to 
correct  some  of  their  estimates  of  the  world's  age,  even 
to  the  extent  of  reducing  an  alleged  period  of  3,000,00(3 
years  to  7,000  years.  Some  of  the  details  of  these  cor- 
rections are  exceedingly  interesting,  and  though  elfi 
where  referred  to  in  this  volume,  will  bear  a  slight  ex- 
tension of  detail. 

Sir  Charles  Ly ell's  reason  for  visiting  Niagara  Falls 
with  Professor  James  Hall  in  1841  was  that  then,  as 
now,  the  geologists  saw  in  the  gorge  below  the  Falls  an 
important  chronometer  for  measuring  the  time  since 
the  recession  of  the  great  North  American  ice  sheet. 

Desor,  the  French  geologist,  had  given  to  the  gorge 
an  age  of  3,000,000  years.  Lyell's  computations  com- 
pelled him  to  correct  this  extraordinary  estimate, 
bringing  it  down  to  100,000  years.  This  correction  was 
based  upon  what  Lyell  believed  to  be  a  recession  of 
four  inches  a  year. 

Hall  pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  recession  was  going 
on  at  a  much  more  rapid  rate,  at  least  a  foot  a  year. 
Another  correction  was  made,  reducing  the  figure  to 
less  than  35,000  years. 

In  the  surveys  made  (1875)  by  the  "New  York  State 
Geologists,"  and  in  1886  by  the  "United  States  Gh 
logical  Survey,"  it  was  found,  to  the  amazement   of 
scientists,  that  the  rate  of  recession  was  not  one  feet  a 
year,  as  estimated  by  Hall,  and  not  four  inches  a  year, 


336  GOD—OR  GORILLA 

as  estimated  by  Lyell,  but  from  twenty  to  twenty-seven 
feet  a  year  in  the  central  part  of  the  Horseshoe. 

Taking  an  average  rate  of  only  five  feet  per  annum, 
the  members  of  the  Geological  Survey  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  7,000  years  is  as  long  a  period  as  could 
possibly  be  assigned  to  the  commencement  of  the  gorge. 

Another  chronometer  is  the  gorge  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  extending  from  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  at  Min- 
neapolis, to  its  junction  with  the  pre-glacial  trough  of 
the  old  Mississippi  at  Fort  Snelling,  a  distance  of  about 
seven  miles. 

Here,  as  at  Niagara,  the  upper  strata  of  rock  consist 
of  hard  limestone  underlaid  by  soft  sandstone,  which, 
like  the  underlying  shale  at  Niagara,  is  eroded  faster 
than  the  upper  strata,  so  that  a  perpendicular  fall  is 
maintained. 

The  strata  are  so  uniform  in  texture  and  thickness 
that  the  rate  of  recession  of  the  Falls  must  have  been 
from  the  beginning  very  constant. 

G.  Frederick  Wright,  who  himself  was  a  member  of 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  says,  "Man  and 
the  Glacial  Period,"  Appleton,  1896,  p.  340:  "For- 
tunately the  first  discoverer  of  the  cataract — the  Catho- 
lic missionary  Hennepin — was  an  accurate  observer 
and  was  given  to  recording  his  observations  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  outside  world  and  of  future  genera- 
tions. From  his  description,  printed  in  Amsterdam  in 
1704,  Professor  N.  H.  Winchell  is  able  to  determine  the 
precise  locality  of  the  cataract  when  discovered  in  1680. 

"Again  in  1766  the  Catholic  missionary  Carver  vis- 
ited the  falls,  and  not  only  wrote  a  description,  but 
made  a  sketch  (found  in  an  account  of  his  travels,  pub- 
lished in  London  in  1788)  which  confirms  the  infer- 
ences drawn  from  Hennepin's  narrative.  The  actual 
period  of  recession  extends  to  the  year  1856,  at  which 
time   such  artificial  changes  were  introduced  as  to 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  337 

modify  the  rate  of  recession  and  disturb  further  cal- 
culations. 

"But  between  1680  and  1766  the  Falls  had  evidently 
receded  about  412  feet.  Between  1766  and  1856  the 
recession  had  been  600  feet.  The  average  rate  is  esti- 
mated by  Professor  Winchell  to  be  about  five  feet  per 
year,  and  the  total  length  of  time  required  for  the  for- 
mation of  the  gorge  above  Fort  Snelling  is  about  the 
same  as  that  calculated  by  Woodward  and  Gilbert  for 
the  Niagara  gorge' ' — some  7,000  years,  not  3,000,000 
years ! 

These  corrections  have  been  adopted  by  the  geolo- 
gists as  orthodox,  but  no  parallel  corrections  have  been 
applied  to  what  they  call  the  Eocene,  or  to  the  little 
squirrel-like  father  of  the  horse,  the  Eohippus,  given, 
like  the  Niagara  gorge,  an  age  of  3,000,000  years. 

Perhaps  some  day  it  will  be  quite  as  scientific  to  cor- 
rect 3,000,000  years  of  Eohippus  to  7,000  years,  as  it 
has  been  scientific  to  correct  the  3,000,000  years  of 
Niagara  gorge  to  7,000  years, 

Darwin  had  something  like  this  in  his  mind.  In  the 
first  edition  of  his  "Origin  of  Species"  he  estimated 
that  the  time  required  for  the  erosion  of  the  Wealden 
deposits  in  England  was  306,662,400  years,  which  he 
spoke  of  as  "  a  mere  trifle ' '  of  the  time  at  his  command 
for  establishing  the  Darwinian  theory.  This  was  be- 
fore Sir  William  Thomson  whittled  these  millions  down 
like  an  "odious  specter.' ' 

In  his  second  edition  Darwin  confesses  that  his  origi- 
nal estimate  concerning  the  length  of  geological  time 
was  rash.    In  all  later  editions  he  quietly  omitted  it. 

Note  on  the  Eye 

With  respect  to  the  origin  of  the  eye,  chap.  VIII.,  pp. 
113-114,  the  evolutionists  are  lost  in  a  maze  of  contra- 


338  GOD— OR  GOEILLA 

dictions.  Speaking  of  the  Trilobite  which  goes  back 
to  the  very  base  of  the  Silurian  system  dating  from  the 
oldest  period  of  life,  Alexander  Winchell  observed  as 
early  as  1870  ("Sketches  of  Creation/ '  Harper  & 
Brothers,  p.  80),  that  this  extraordinary  creature  had 
eyes  beautifully  and  fully  developed.  He  says:  "With 
all,  except  the  lower  forms,  the  eyes  are  distinctly  dis- 
cernible, and  even  in  these  the  places  for  the  eyes  are 
visible,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  they  were 
blind.  In  the  others  the  eyes  are  curiously  compound, 
like  those  of  the  common  house-fly.  The  beautiful  and 
perfect  structure  which  they  display  will  compensate 
for  the  trouble  of  procuring  the  means  to  make  the 
observation.  Some  scores  of  little  lenses,  arranged 
with  the  most  perfect  symmetry,  each  set  in  its  little 
telescopic  tube,  form  upon  the  retina  the  various  por- 
tions of  an  image  of  some  external  object.  Such  eyes 
had  the  Trilobite." 

Note  on  the  Skull  of  Bruce 

The  popularizers  of  fraud  who  so  frequently  refer 
to  the  Neanderthal  type  of  skull  as  one  of  the  support- 
ing pillars  of  their  ape-man  theory,  are  extremely  care- 
ful never  to  refer  to  G.  Frederick  Wright,  "Man  and 
the  Glacial  Period,"  Appleton,  1896,  p.  276.  The  fol- 
lowing, with  reference  to  chap.  III.,  p.  36,  is  quoted: 

"Upon  extending  inquiries  it  was  found  that  the  Ne- 
anderthal type  of  skull  is  one  which  still  has  repre- 
sentatives in  all  nations;  so  that  it  is  unsafe  to  infer 
that  the  individual  was  a  representative  of  all  the  indi- 
viduals living  in  his  time.  The  skull  of  Bruce,  the  cele- 
brated Scotch  hero,  was  a  close  reproduction  of  the 
Neanderthal  type ;  while,  according  to  Quatref  ages,  the 
skull  of  the  Bishop  of  Toul,  in  the  fourth  century,  even 
exaggerates  some  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  339 

Neanderthal  cranium.  The  forehead  is  still  more  re- 
ceding, the  vault  more  depressed,  and  the  head  so  long 
that  the  cephalic  index  is  69.41.' ' 

Note  on  Original  Varieties 

Among  the  contradictions  referred  to  in  chap.  VITL, 
and  which  from  the  very  outset  defy  explanation  that 
will  square  with  any  theory  of  evolution  are  the  eri- 
noids,  brachiopods  and  trilobites  identified  with  the  be- 
ginning of  life.  Winchell  says  of  them  ("Sketches 
of  Creation,' '  p.  76)  :  "One  cannot  but  be  astonished 
that  in  the  very  outset  of  animalization  upon  our  globe 
so  high  a  rank  and  so  great  variety  of  types  should 
have  been  manifested.  If  we  are  to  judge  from  that 
which  is  known  rather  than  that  which  is  conjectured, 
we  are  compelled  to  conclude  that  the  varied  forms  of 
animal  life  did  not  come  into  being  by  a  gradual  evolu- 
tion from  the  Eozoon,  but  as  so  many  original  utter- 
ances of  the  all-skilled  Artificer  of  creation. ' ' 

Note  on  Placental  Shark 

With  regard  to  the  evolutionary  riddle  of  the  pla- 
cental shark  referred  to,  chap.  X.,  p.  135,  the  reader 
may  consult  the  Herbert  Spencer  lecture,  "Aristotle 
as  a  Biologist,"  delivered  by  D'Arcy  Wentworth 
Thompson,  University  of  Oxford,  February  14,  1913, 
Clarendon  Press,  pp.  20-21.    The  following  is  quoted: 

"...  Other  kinds  do  not  lay  eggs,  but  bring 
forth  their  young  alive,  and  these  include  the  Torpedo 
and  numerous  sharks  or  dogfish.  The  eggshell  La  in 
these  cases  verv  thin,  and  breaks  before  the  birth  of 
the  young.  But  among  them  there  are  a  couple  of 
sharks,  of  which  one  species  was  within  Aristotle's 
reach,  where  a  very  curious  thing  happens.    Through 


340  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

the  delicate  membrane,  which  is  all  that  is  left  of  the 
eggshell,  the  great  yolk-sac  of  the  embryo  becomes 
connected  with  the  parental  tissues,  which  infold  and 
interweave  with  it;  and  by  means  of  this  temporary 
union  the  blood  of  the  parent  becomes  the  medium  of 
nourishment  for  the  young.  And  the  whole  arrange- 
ment is  physiologically  identical  with  what  obtains  in 
the  higher  animals,  the  mammals,  or  warm-blooded 
vivipara.  It  is  true  that  the  yolk-sac  is  not  identical 
with  that  other  embryonic  membrane  which  comes  in 
the  mammals  to  discharge  the  function  of  which  I 
speak;  but  Aristotle  was  aware  of  the  difference,  and 
distinguishes  the  two  membranes  with  truth  and  ac- 
curacy. 

"It  happens  that  of  the  particular  genus  of  sharks 
to  which  this  one  belongs,  there  are  two  species  differ- 
ing by  almost  imperceptible  characters ;  but  it  is  in  one 
only  of  the  two,  the  Galeos  leios  of  Aristotle,  that  this 
singular  phenomenon  of  the  placenta  vitellina  is  found. 

"It  is  found  in  the  great  blue  shark  of  the  Atlantic 
and  the  Mediterranean;  but  this  creature  grows  to  a 
very  large  size  before  it  breeds,  and  such  great  speci- 
mens are  not  likely  to  have  come  under  Aristotle's 
hands.  Cuvier  detected  the  phenomenon  in  the  blue 
shark,  but  paid  little  attention  to  it,  and,  for  all  his 
knowledge  of  Aristotle,  did  not  perceive  that  he  was 
dealing  with  an  important  fact  which  the  Philosopher 
had  studied  and  explained.  In  the  seventeenth  century, 
the  anatomist  Steno  actually  rediscovered  the  phe- 
nomenon, but  he  was  unacquainted  with  Aristotle. 
And  the  very  fact  was  again  forgotten  until  Johannes 
Miiller  brought  it  to  light,  and  showed  not  only  how 
complete  was  Aristotle's  account,  but  how  wide  must 
have  been  his  survey  of  this  class  of  fishes  to  enable 
him  to  record  this  peculiarity  in  its  relation  to  their 
many  differences  of  structure  and  reproductive  habit.' ' 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  341 

The  writer  would  have  more  respect  for  the  devote 
of  the  evolution  theory  were  they  less  self-conscious  in 
their  efforts  to  avoid  such  stumbling  blocks  as  these  by 
an  all-too-transparent  policy  of  over-eloquent  silence. 


Note  on  Flints  and  Fire 

In  " Natural  History,"  the  Journal  of  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History,  vol.  XXI.,  No.  G,  pub- 
lished New  York,  February,  1922,  Professor  Henry 
Fairfield  Osborn  declares,  "We  have  at  last  in  the 
Foxhall  flints  found  proofs  of  the  existence  of  real 
Tertiary  man." 

In  proving  that  there  really  was  a  Tertiary  man, 
Osborn  relies  upon  J.  Reid  Moir,  who,  in  his  treatise 
on  Pre-Palaeolithic  Man,  maintains  that  the  Piltdown 
freak  was  a  real  person  wmo  actually  existed  in  the 
Upper  Pliocene  age,  and  "possibly  was  the  maker  of 
the  Foxhall  flints." 

"This  discovery  of  man  in  Pliocene  time,"  says  Os- 
born, "delights  the  present  writer  for  a  personal  rea- 
son, namely,  because  it  tends  to  render  somewhat  more 
probable  his  prophecy  made  in  April,  1921,  before  the 
National  Academy  of  Sciences  at  Washington  that  one 
of  the  great  surprises  in  store  for  us  in  science  is  the 
future  discovery  of  Pliocene  man  with  a  large  brain.' 

This  enthusiasm  has  been  slightly  chilled  by  Os- 
born 's  confession  that  "at  present,  however,  we  know 
nothing  of  the  brain-weight  and  little  of  the  degree  of 
intelligence  of  the  man  who  fashioned  the  Hint  of  Fox- 
hall near  Ipswich. ' ' 

Nevertheless,  out  of  this  nothingness  of  matter  Os- 
born has  fashioned  what  he  calls  the  Foxhall  man  of 
Ipswich.  In  a  signed  paper  published  in  the  New  V<>rk 
Times,  Sunday,  March  5,  1922,  Osborn  speaks  of  this 


342  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

new  creation  as  if  he  had  seen  and  examined  its  various 
members.    He  says : 

"The  very  recent  discovery  of  Tertiary  man  which 
I  have  just  described  in  '  Natural  History/  living  long 
before  the  Ice  Age,  certainly  capable  of  walking  in  an 
erect  position,  having  a  hand  and  a  foot  fashioned  like 
our  own,  also  a  brain  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  fash- 
ion many  different  kinds  of  implements,  to  make  a  fire, 
to  make  flint  tools  which  may  have  been  used  for  the 
dressing  of  hides  as  clothing,  constitutes  the  most  con- 
vincing answer  to  Mr.  Bryan's  call  for  more  evidence. 
This  Foxhall  man  found  near  Ipswich,  England,  thus 
far  known  only  by  the  flint  implements  he  made,  and 
his  fire,  is  the  last  bit  of  evidence  in  the  direction  of 
giving  man  a  descent  line  of  his  own  far  back  in  geo- 
logic time.  This  is  not  guesswork,  this  is  a  fact.  It  is 
another  truth  which  we  shall  have  to  accept  regardless 
of  its  effect.  No  naturalist  has  ever  ventured  to  place 
man  so  far  back  in  geologic  time  as  this  actual  dis- 
covery of  the  Foxhall  man  places  him.  In  this  instance 
again  truth  is  stranger  than  hypothesis  or  specula- 
tion. ' ' 

So  we  have  hands  and  feet,  and  a  large  brain,  and 
a  man  really  found,  as  far  as  the  superficial  reader  is 
concerned,  until  we  discover  that  we  have  no  such 
hands  or  feet,  no  brain  of  any  kind,  no  skull,  no  bones, 
no  finding  of  a  man  or  of  any  fragment  of  a  man. 

Yet  we  are  coolly  informed  by  the  president  of  the 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  by  the  verte- 
brate palaeontologist  of  the  United  States  Geological 
Survey,  by  the  research  professor  of  zoology  in  Colum- 
bia University,  that  this  fact  which  is  not  guesswork, 
which  is  another  truth  that  we  must  accept  regardless 
of  its  effect,  is  "the  most  convincing  answer  to  Mr. 
Bryan's  call  for  more  evidence.' ' 

The  evidence  consists  of  eoliths,  flints,  some  of  them 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  34:5 

so  large  and  so  heavy  that  Osborn  himself  admits  that 
he  sees  in  them  a  new  problem. 

Our  ancestors,  the  Neanderthals,  are  given  a  squatty 
build.  They  were  five  feet,  two  inches  tall.  These  big 
flints  compel  Osborn  to  change  his  opinions  as  to  the 
size  of  the  early  man.  He  thinks  "they  were  made 
and  used  by  men  of  heavier  build  than  that  which  suc- 
ceeded them.  Whether  made  by  an  exceptionally  big 
race  or  by  men  of  the  modern  size,  the  use  of  heavy 
big  flint  implements  presents  a  problem.  If  used 
merely  as  hammers  or  as  club-heads  they  would  be 
unwieldy  and  would  not  require  any  special  shaping. 
The  only  suggestion  I  can  offer  as  to  their  use  besid* 
that  of  pounding  or  breaking  into  the  cavities  of  the 
bones  of  large  animals  in  order  to  extract  marrow, 
brain,  etc.,  is  that  they  were  employed  either  affixed 
to  a  handle  or  held  by  the  two  hands  for  the  purpose 
of  breaking  a  hole  in  the  ice  on  the  surface  of  a  lake 
or  marsh  pool." 

These  quotations  are  not  original  with  Osborn.  He 
ascribes  them  to  E.  Ray  Lankester. 

At  any  rate  they  constitute  the  " evidence' '  of  the 
existence  of  the  Foxhall  man  of  Ipswich. 

Surelv  Professor  Osborn  cannot  be  unfamiliar  with 
the  work  of  M.  Adrien  Arcelin,  the  well-known  geolo- 
gist of  Macon,  who  discovered  numerous  so-called 
"flints"  made  by  chipping,  due  not  to  the  hand  of  man 
or  the  large  brain  of  man,  or  any  Foxhall  creature  of 
Ipswich,  but  to  the  accidental  shocks  sustained  by  0m1 
stone  against  another  in  the  countless  overturnings 
and  movements  to  which  the  strata  had  been  subjected 
during  long  ages  of  geological  time. 

Arcelin  describes  how  he  has  actually  surprised  na- 
ture in  the  very  act  of  fabricating  these  flints  in  an 
abandoned  quarry  worked  in  an  Eocene  deposit,  ex 
plaining  the  crackled  surfaces  as  the  result  of  atmos 


344  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

pheric  action  and  the  action  of  hot  springs  charged 
with  silex. 

Arcelin  grants  that  some  of  these  flints  may  have 
been  caused  by  fire,  but  insists  that  fire  does  not  imply 
the  intervention  of  man  in  their  production.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  volcanoes  were  spitting  fire  long 
before  the  creation  of  man,  just  as  they  continue  to 
spit  fire  to  this  day. 

Concurring  with  Arcelin  are  M.  d'Ault  de  Mesnil, 
M.  Paul  Cabanne,  and  our  own  American  geologist,  G. 
Frederick  Wright.  The  latter  declares,  "Man  and  the 
Glacial  Period,"  p.  370,  that  the  so-called  Thenay 
flints  are  the  result  of  natural  causes  and  are  not  the 
products  of  human  intelligence  and  labor.  He  bases 
his  convictions  "upon  the  experience  of  many  years 
spent  in  the  study  of  flints  broken  naturally,  as  well 
as  artificially,  and  upon  a  careful  examination  of  Bour- 
geois 's  collections. " 

When  we  boil  down  the  Foxhall  man  of  Ipswich,  the 
residue  is  even  less  than  that  which  remained  of  the 
Piltdown  man  when  the  scientists  themselves,  separat- 
ing the  chimpanzee  mandible  from  the  human  skull- 
cap, robbed  the  creature  of  a  muzzle  that  ill  became 
him. 

0 shorn  himself  once  confessed  an  uneasy  doubt  as 
to  the  decency  and  propriety  of  associating  that  chim- 
panzee mandible  with  that  human  brain-pan,  but  he 
now  declares :  ' '  The  writer  desires  not  only  to  recant 
his  former  doubts  as  to  the  association  of  the  jaw  with 
the  skull,  but  to  express  his  admiration  of  the  great 
achievement  of  his  life-long  friend,  Arthur  Smith 
Woodward,  in  finally  establishing  beyond  question  the 
authenticity  of  the  Dawn  Man  of  Piltdown. " 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  345 

Note  on  Rhodesian  Man 

In  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  April,  1922,  G.  Elliott 
Smith  not  only  puts  the  ape-man  of  Java  and  the  Pilt- 
down  man  of  England  into  respectable  society  as  genu- 
inely unblemished  missing  links,  but  he  refers  also  to 
"the  fossil  man  of  Rhodesia "  as  possessing  a  face 
"more  definitely  primitive  and  brutal  than  that  of  any 
other  human  being,  living  or  extinct,  that  is  at  present 
known.  The  enormous  eyebrow  ridges  are  bigger, 
even,  than  those  of  the  most  archaic  member  of  the 
human  family,  the  Javan  Ape-Man;  and  in  the  extent 
and  form  of  their  lateral  extensions,  they  recall  the 
condition  found  in  man's  nearest  simian  relative,  the 
gorilla.  The  nose  of  the  Rhodesian  man  ivas  definitely 
more  ape-like  than  that  of  Neanderthal  man.'1  (Italics 
ours.) 

At  this  point  there  is  the  suggestion  of  a  thinly  veiled 
doubt.    The  writer  uses  the  "perhaps.'     "Perhaps,' 
he  says,  "also  the  Rhodesian  man  had  a  wide  nose  in 
comparison  with  which  the  Negro  or  the  Tasmanian's 
would  seem  narrow/ '    "Perhaps"  is  always  good! 

Elsewhere  appears  another  doubt  to  blur  the  gorilla 
vision.  The  writer  says:  "The  canine  teeth  did  not 
project  in  the  ape-like  manner  of  those  of  Piltdown 


man. ' ' 


But  there  is  no  doubt  in  the  expression,  "Nature  has 
always  been  reluctant  to  give  up  to  man  the  secrets 
of  his  own  early  history,  or,  perhaps,  unduly  consider- 
ate of  his  vanity  in  sparing  him  the  full  knowledge 
(such  as  is  possessed  by  G.  Elliott  Smith)  of  these  lc 
attractive  members  of  his  family,  who  too  obviously 
retain  the  mark  of  the  beast."    (Italics  ours.) 

We  have  seen  that  the  Neanderthal  man  is  classified 
halfway  between  the  anthropoid  ape  and  the  real  hu- 
man being.     G.  Elliott  Smith  goes  farther  than  this 


346  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

by  declaring  that  "the  Rhodesian  man  is  a  half -devel- 
oped Neanderthal  man,"  thus  more  securely  tying  up 
the  human  race  with  the  ape. 

Of  course  this  throws  the  Rhodesian  man  far  back 
into  pre-human  history,  and  if  there  is  any  evidence  to 
show  that  this  view  of  the  defunct  gentleman  is  un- 
tenable, it  must  be  ignored. 

G.  Elliott  Smith  is  greatly  troubled  by  the  fact  that 
the  leg  bones  prove  conclusively  that  the  Neanderthal 
man  (who  happened  to  be  a  woman)  walked  erect,  like 
Lloyd  George  or  Warren  G.  Harding.  This  fact  he 
will  not  permit  to  trouble  him  unduly,  '  i  For, ' '  he  says, 
"if  the  most  ancient  and  primitive  member  of  the  hu- 
man family  walked  erect,  the  (assumed)  erectness  of 
Rhodesian  man  cannot  be  fatal  to  the  claim  to  regard 
him  as  primitive."  The  word  "assumed"  in  paren- 
theses is  quoted  from  Smith. 

Precisely  because  he  can't  be  regarded  as  primitive 
in  the  sense  of  great  age,  G.  Elliott  Smith,  while  as- 
tonishingly positive  in  all  his  other  opinions,  makes 
it  very  clear  that  the  ape-man  evolutionists  do  not  in- 
tend that  their  opponents  shall  marshal  the  true  and 
positive  facts  of  the  case  against  any  sacro-sanct 
theory  which  demands  great  age. 

He  insists  that  we  do  not  possess  a  single  "scrap  of 
information  as  to  the  date,  either  absolutely  or  rela- 
tively, to  other  human  fossils  when  the  Rhodesian 
species  of  man  lived  and  became  extinct." 

Unfortunately  for  the  scientific  dignity  of  this  gratui- 
tous assertion,  there  is  positive  evidence  to  prove  that 
the  Rhodesian  man,  who  continues  to  remain  a  woman, 
lived  in  comparatively  recent  times,  and  in  connection 
with  this  proof  one  finds  reason  to  be  disturbed  by  the 
discovery  that  in  cataloguing  the  bones  of  the  Broken 
Hill  mine,  G.  Elliott  Smith  entirely  omits,  as  if  they 
had  no  existence,  all  reference  to  the  clavicle  (collar 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  347 

bone),  to  the  fragment  of  a  scapula  (shoulder  blade), 
and  to  the  piece  of  coccyx  joined  to  several  sacral 
vertebrae  (base  of  the  spine). 

Of  these  not  a  word  is  said,  and  in  the  discreet  Bilence 
thus  maintained,  there  is  no  call  for  a  labored  explana- 
tion. The  simple  fact  is  that  these  bones  are  so  wholly 
and  unmistakably  human  and  modern  that  the  most 
discreet  policy  for  the  evolutionist  to  pursue  with  re 
spect  to  them  is  the  policy  of  Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester, 
who  tells  us  that  in  all  discussion  of  the  Piltdown  man 
it  is  wise  to  keep  the  human  cranium  and  chimpanzee 
mandible  apart. 

Perhaps  Professor  Smith  would  find  it  profitable  to 
refer  to  the  Revue  des  Questions  Scientifiques,  Lou- 
vain,  January  20,  1922,  for  some  of  the  details  that  he 
has  so  obviously  found  it  inexpedient  to  discuss. 

How  does  he  propose  to  treat  the  stone  implements, 
the  pestle  and  the  millstone  for  grinding  grain,  which 
were  found  with  the  Rhodesian  bones!  The  South 
African  Bushman  of  today  makes  use  of  stone  imple- 
ments exactly  like  those  found  in  the  Broken  Hill  cav- 
ern. Here  is  the  very  kind  of  evidence  applied  by 
palaeontologists  in  all  other  matters  as  an  index  of  age. 
Surely  they  do  not  propose  to  dismiss  it  in  this  ca 
merely  because  it  fixes  the  age  of  the  Rhodesian  man 
as  extremely  modern,  when  what  they  are  looking  for 
is  proof  of  great  antiquity. 

Another  proof  of  the  recent  origin  of  the  Rhodesian 
relic  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  animal  bones  discov- 
ered with  the  human  skull  and  the  other  human  bon< 
not  mentioned  by  Professor  Smith,  are  the  bones  of 
modern  animals — the  lion,  hyena,  elephant,  rhinoceros, 
horse,  antelope,  gnu,  etc. 

What  does  Professor  Smith  mean  by  closing  his  ej 
to  these  glaring  refutations  of  his  theory:     There  is 
not  only  nothing  in  the  bone  deposits  to  suggest  greal 


348  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

age,  but  there  is  much  to  indicate  that  the  Rhode sian 
man,  or  woman,  fell  into  the  heap  at  a  comparatively 
recent  date. 

Even  Professor  Smith  himself,  speaking  of  a  cleft 
in  the  cave  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  human 
Rhodesian  got  into  it  with  the  Rhodesian  animals, 
makes  a  strange  admission.  He  says:  " But  the  cleft 
(in  the  roof  of  the  cave)  does  leave  open  the  possibility 
of  the  human  beings  having  fallen  into  the  cave  at  a 
more  recent  period." 

Here  we  are  struck  by  overwhelming  evidence  of 
the  recent  origin  of  the  Rhodesian  skull.  None  of  the 
human  bones  are  fossilized,  although  all  the  bones  of 
the  modern  animals  found  with  them  are  completely 
fossilized.  This  f ossilization  must  have  taken  place  at 
a  rapid  rate  on  account  of  the  immediate  proximity 
and  abundance  of  extremely  active  salts  of  zinc. 

Why  is  the  Rhodesian  skull  not  in  the  least  fossil- 
ized? Professor  Smith  "Woodward  expressly  empha- 
sizes the  fact  that  it  is  not  at  all  fossilized.  This  ab- 
sence  of  f  ossilization  is  extremely  important.  It  proves 
conclusively  that  the  human  bones  got  into  the  cave  at 
a  very  much  later  date  than  the  bones  of  the  modern 
animals  among  which  it  was  discovered.  So  completely 
has  the  gelatine  and  other  organic  matter  of  these  ani- 
mal bones  been  replaced  by  phosphate  of  zinc  that  the 
bones  themselves  are  used  as  ore  and  are  sent  by  tons 
to  the  smelters. 

Furthermore,  inasmuch  as  the  Rhodesian  skull  was 
in  close  and  intimate  contact  with  verv  active  mineral 
salts,  is  it  not  asking  Mother  Nature  to  confess  a  whim- 
sical, if  not  a  miraculous,  mood  in  making  a  mysterious 
and  inexplicable  exception  of  the  human  bones  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  prevent  their  f ossilization? 

The  attempt  made  by  the  newspapers  to  create  the 
impression  that  the  skull  was  found  more  than  a  hun- 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  349 

dred  feet  below  the  ground  suggests  that  the  Rhodesian 
man  was  buried  under  successive  sedimentary  deposits, 
a  fact  which,  if  true,  would  lend  weight  to  the  theory 
that  he  was  very  old. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  he  was  found  in  a  cave,  as 
reported  by  William  Harris,  who  was  at  the  mine  at 
the  time  of  the  discovery,  by  native  laborers  who 
brought  the  bones  to  their  overseer,  a  white  man,  and 
then  went  back  to  their  digging. 

It  is  also  true  that  it  was  not  until  some  time  later 
that  the  managing  director  of  the  Broken  Hill  mine, 
Ross  Macartney,  recognized  the  importance  of  the  dis- 
covery and  gave  orders  to  stop  work  at  that  part  of  the 
mine,  although  Professor  Smith  Woodward  has  made 
the  mistake  of  giving  credit  for  the  discovery  (Nature, 
November  17,  1921)  to  W.  E.  Barron,  a  New  Zealand 
engineer,  who  "was  so  fortunate  as  to  discover  and  dig 
out  of  the  earth  a  nearly  complete  human  skull.' ' 

At  any  rate,  the  Rhodesian  man  was  found  in  a  cave, 
the  roof  of  which  had  at  one  time  been  more  than  a 
hundred  feet  thick.  What  effect  could  the  thickness 
of  the  roof  have  produced  upon  the  age  of  the  contents 
of  the  cave?  Had  it  been  a  thousand  feet  thick  instead 
of  a  hundred,  it  would  have  made  little  difference  to 
the  Rhodesian  man  who  tumbled  through  the  cleft,  ex- 
cept for  the  bump  at  the  end  of  the  fall. 

But,  regardless  of  the  thickness  of  its  roof,  what 
were  the  pestle  and  the  millstone  doing  in  that  cave! 
Certainly  the  millstone  proved  the  existence  of  grains 
to  be  ground,  and  a  knowledge  not  only  of  agriculture, 
but  of  porridge  making  and  possibly  of  bread  baking. 

Why  does  Professor  Smith  ignore  the  millstone! 
Why  does  he  ignore  the  pestle?  Does  not  the  Latter 
suggest  that  the  Rhodesian  man  knew  how  to  crush 
materials  to  be  used  for  coloring  purposes?    Does  this 


350  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

not  mean  that  in  addition  to  his  knowledge  of  agricul- 
ture and  milling,  he  had  also  some  ideas  of  art? 

The  suggestions  involved,  though  naively  dismissed 
by  the  professors,  can  hardly  be  reconciled  to  the  habits 
of  life  of  any  prehistoric,  ferocious  ape-man  such  as 
is  classically  pictured  by  Professor  Knight  as  a  killer 
armed  with  a  murderous  club. 

Again  on  the  question  of  age  the  ape-man  evolution- 
ists are  compelled  to  run  to  a  cover  of  their  own  mak- 
ing. The  tibia  (shin  bone)  is  long  and  thin,  entirely 
modern  in  type.  The  two  ends  of  the  femur  (thigh 
bone)  are  precisely  like  those  of  a  well  formed  adult 
of  today.  The  sacrum  (formed  by  the  coalescence  of 
five  vertebrae)  presents  no  extraordinary  features. 
If  it  did,  something  would  be  said  on  the  subject. 

The  skull  itself  exhibits  some  very  modern  char- 
acteristics. The  teeth,  as  has  been  noted,  are  badly 
decayed.  Dental  decay  is  unknown  among  the  palaeo- 
lithic Europeans.  The  occipital  orifice  is  exactly  like 
that  of  modern  man,  so  situated  as  to  assure  an  upright 
position  to  the  head  without  any  forward  inclination, 
such  as  is  the  distinctively  brutish  characteristic  of 
all  apes,  without  exception. 

The  third  molar,  as  in  the  case  of  modern  man,  is 
notably  smaller  than  the  second.  The  thickness  of  the 
skull  does  not  differ  from  the  European  skull  of  1922. 
We  have  already  had  a  picture  of  the  beautiful  palate, 
perfectly  vaulted,  entirely  human,  well  adjusted  for 
articulate  speech,  compared  even  with  the  voice-box  of 
a  professional  singer. 

The  eyebrow  ridges  are  indeed  heavy  and  the  slope 
of  the  forehead  would  never  suggest  the  skull  of  Bis- 
marck. 

If  the  evolutionists  could  only  confine  their  discus- 
sion to  these  features  of  the  Rhodesian  skull,  wiping 
out  all  the  contradictions  which  honest  science  compels 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  351 

them  to  heed,  they  would  have  less  of  a  puzzle  to  be- 
gin with  and  a  better  reputation  at  the  end. 

Even  Professor  Smith  remarks,  as  if  chilled  bv  the 
necessity,  that  the  cheek  bones  entirely  lack  the  highly- 
to-be-desired  canine  fossae  which  would  have  given 
gorilla-like  fangs  to  his  new  toy.  One  can  hardly  un- 
derstand his  references  to  the  gorilla-like  nose  when 
it  is  learned  that  the  nasal  bones  are  distinctively  and 
perfectly  human. 

In  the  meantime,  E.  P.  Mennell  and  E.  C.  Chubb  have 
described  the  stone  implements  found  among  the  Rho- 
desian  bones.  Why  does  Professor  Smith  say  nothing 
about  them?  The  answer  to  this  question,  with  a 
deadly  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  scientific  bias,  might 
be  illuminating. 

Note  on  Triassic  ' '  Shoe  ' y 

In  March,  1922,  John  T.  Reid,  member  of  the  Ameri- 
can Institute  of  Mining  Engineers,  and  mining  direc- 
tor of  the  Nevada  United  Mining  Company,  brought 
to  New  York,  where  it  was  exhibited  at  the  Herald 
Square  Hotel,  the  "fossil  sole"  of  a  shoe  or  sandal, 
which,  according  to  the  orthodox  methods  of  estimat- 
ing age  by  geological  processes,  must  be  set  down  as 
between  36  and  360  million  years  old. 

Obviously  the  specimen  caused  no  little  consterna- 
tion among  the  scientists  who  examined  it.  The  fossil 
was  discovered  by  Albert  Knapp,  an  employee  of  the 
mining  company,  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  West 
Humboldt  Mountains,  Pershing  County,  Nevada,  at 
a  spot  on  the  north  slide  of  Buffalo  Peak,  about  twenty- 
five  miles  due  easterly  of  the  town  of  Lovelock. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  rock  in  which  the 
fossil  is  imbedded  is  Triassic.  The  whole  formation 
of  which  it  was  a  part  is  described  as  Star  Peak  Tri- 


352  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

assic  in  the  records  of  the  Fortieth  Parallel  Survey, 
mapped  by  Clarence  King,  the  geologist  in  charge  of 
the  survey  conducted  under  the  supervision  of  the  War 
Department,  1873,  and  reported  in  nine  volumes  pub- 
lished by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Imposed  upon  this  piece  of  Triassic  rock,  marked 
with  veinlets  of  calc-spar  characteristic  of  the  blue  lime- 
stone of  the  Triassic  stratum,  and  slightly  impressed 
into  it,  is  the  sole  of  a  child's  shoe  corresponding  to 
No.  13  of  the  modern  shoe. 

The  sole  has  been  completely  silicified  and  is  harder 
and  more  compact  than  the  rock  itself. 

When  John  T.  Reid,  the  first  to  recognize  its  impor- 
tance, brought  the  specimen  to  the  metropolis,  he  had 
no  idea  that  he  was  about  to  upset  not  only  all  the 
conventional  theories  as  to  the  age  of  the  world,  but 
all  the  opinions  of  living  evolutionists.  A  human  fossil 
imposed  on  Triassic  rock  either  means  that  the  system 
of  judging  age  periods,  as  far  as  geologists  are  con- 
cerned, is  now  and  has  been  wholly  and  preposterously 
absurd,  or  that  a  Triassic  shoemaker  manufactured 
shoes  in  Nevada  some  thirty  millions  of  years  before 
the  first  monkeys  appeared  on  earth. 

Out  of  this  ridiculous  muddle  it  can  be  argued  that 
inasmuch  as  man  could  not  have  descended  from  a 
creature  that  did  not  come  into  being  until  some  30,- 
000,000  years  after  man's  arrival,  that  creature  must 
have  descended  from  man.  To  complete  the  absurdity, 
we  are  confronted  with,  an  alternative  for  the  "ape- 
origin  of  man,",  and  must  now  worry  over  the  "man- 
origin  of  ape." 

The  conservative  New  York  Times,  Sunday,  March 
19,  1922,  announced  that  "the  age  of  the  shoe  was  mil- 
lions of  years";  that  "it  amazes  scientists";  that 
"the  stitching  is  perfect,  but  that  man  didn't  exist 
when  it  was  made,  according  to  the  professors." 


I'hoto  hy  Underwood  &■  Underwood  from   bones  owned  by  tht    author. 

Artificial  upright  position  of  adult  gorilla,  with  head  mounted  at 
artificial  angle.  Note  curves  oi'  femur  (thigh  bone),  spines  <"> 
cervical  vertebra?  above  scapula.  Such  massive  spines  have  never 
been  found  on  any  human  skeleton.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
differences  between  the  pelvis  of  the  gorilla  and  the  peh  an 

are  as  radical  as  the  differences  between  their  skulls  and   spinal 
vertebras.     Again,  compare  skeletons  of  man  and  chimpan 
site  page  56. 


Photo   by  Underwood  <L-   Underwood  from   boms  owned  by   the  author. 

Artificial  upright  position  of  gorilla.  Head  mounted  in  natural  posi- 
tion. Note  cervical  spines  on  vertebrae  and  massiveness  of  every 
bone  as  compared  with  human.  After  noting  "feet"  compare 
cervical  spines  of  gorilla  with  dorsal  spines  of  horse.  For  this 
comparison  see  illustration  opposite  page   166. 


Photo  by  Underwood  d-  Underwood  from   bones  owned  by  tin    mi 

Artificial   upright   position   of  gorilla.     Contrasl    pear  Bha] 

thorax  with  conical  shape  of  human  thorax.     Note  thai  the  diff< 
once  between   the  gorilla    pelvis  and   the  chimpanzee   pelvis 
extraordinary  as  the  difference  between  the  gorilla   pelvis  ami 
human  pelvis.     Again,  refer  t<»  illustration  opposite  pi 


Photo  by  Underwood  d-   Underwood,  from   bones  owned  by  the  author. 

Skeleton  of  gorilla  mounted  in  natural  walking  position.  Compare 
length  of  arms  and  legs.  Note  opposable  thumb  on  ''foot"  where 
big  toe  ought  to  be.  Note  cervical  spines  on  vertebrae  above 
shoulder.     Note  massiveness  of  bony  structure  in  all  its  parts. 


Photo   by   Underwood  <{■   T'ndenrnod  from    hours  owned   I  ' 

Skeleton  of  gorilla  in  natural  walking  posture.     Again,  comi 
eal   spines  of   tliis  creature   with   dorsal   spines  of 
page  166.     Also  compare  with   Haeckel's  schematized   ill 
of  skeletons  of  man.  gorilla,  orang,  chimpanzee  and  gibbon 
would  fully  appreciate  the  grotesque  charai 
which  the  Jena  "scientist"  was  capable  of  tiding. 


Photo  by  Underwood  &  Underwood  from  bones  owned  by  the  author. 

Skeleton  of  gorilla  in  natural  walking  posture.  Again  refer  to 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History  Guide  Leaflet  No.  36, 
p.  41:  "A  careful  study  will  reveal  a  most  striking  simi- 
larity between  horse  and  man  in  general  structure,  the 
differences  being  simply  modifications  of  a  common  plan. ' 
Substitute  "gorilla''  for  "man''  and  you  will  observe  the 
same  general  structure  running  through  the  whole  mam- 
malian order,  precisely  as  the  architect  employs  supporting 
walls  and  roof  for  wood  shed,  barn,  cottage,  palace  or 
cathedral.  "Resemblances"  mean  common  plan,  not  rela- 
tionship. 


'-    — 
-    - 


/ 


-    L 

£.  o 


i    t 


-    r. 

— 

I  — 


5      -   - 
*     -i  ■ 


L"  -^ 

-       A 


=       r    :'  'Z 
v      z  &   S 


-      JL    T- 

o       

3  5 


m 


o> 


c 

— 

C3 

0) 

= 

ft! 

4-J 

Q3 

03 

Pn 

fc 

<H 

O 

CO 

o 

o 

'*"' 

O 

T 

r~~ 

_  _ 

£^ 

^ 

o 

Cf3 

r-4 

o 

n9 

•  * 

2 

£   o 

o    „ 


5      -   o 


© 


•  I— I  l"~* 

fH  ©     © 

bJD  £ 

W  CD 

O  ?H     -i-l 

©    3 

^  >    & 

h  S   to 


© 

©      fH 


50 

© 


c   > 

r-c     jj       W 


i-  © 

o    £*»  ® 

«H  =H  .5 

o   pJ   cu 

i—    — * 
-   r^  —■ • 


01 


^ 

•/ 

u. 

— 

/ 

2 

z. 

** 

I 

B 

r 

~ 

.  Z-i 

••— 

— 

~ 

~ 

/ 

.5 

^- 

- 

■~ 

z 

/ 

%* 

« 

~ 

_' 

<f 

'or 

X 

/ 

— 

-£ 

-- 

/ 



■j 

-T 

7 

»— 

>. 

/ 

7 

- 

/ 

/ 

^" 

/ 

■__ 

•* 

^* 

- 

/ 

— 

~n 

— 

_- 

■ 

: 

i 

2 

/ 

-* 

t 

■"" 

i 

- 

la 

•^  * 

— 

~ 

— 

^j 

_ 

/ 

"S 

Zi 

r 

/ 

■— 

_ 

/ 

- 

— 

, 

-f 

:f 

zi  — 


t£  -_ 


b      c 


=  —  •_' 


£  3  i  , 


=      -I 1  ■- 


-I 


/ 
I   ■  — 


r  r  —  ~    ti 


-     - 


5s; 


© 
.© 


© 

v. 


© 
© 


•a 


© 
© 


03 
© 


o    03 

*-«      — 

g    C 

<S 

>  _ 

c:   - 

S  Si 

S   c 

ft  <H 

*>  2 
c  .5 


^  - 

V 

03 

"tf    CD 

s  -»— 

03 


,J2    S 


ft  ^ 
to    <= 

©   © 
c3 


02 


2 
3 


C  ^ 

1* 


©  •"? 


o 


^c  — 


—    — 
—    o 


/    -. 
sS  ~ 

r  — 


/    — 


- 
-    - 


2     :/. 

/     - 


:i    / 


--    _^ 


93 


09 


© 

© 


■+J     © 

&!)+> 

•  rH 

S  —   © 
->  © 

Si     © 

©   e 


© 


s  2 
o  2 

© 


- 
© 


=     2 


© 


02 

C    Pu  © 

CS    O    fH 

2^  § 

o      . 
w   ^       • 

o  s 

c 

51* 


d  -rt 


o 
o 


o 


«H     © 

C  +j 

oc.£ 
ci  © 

0  1    — ! 


~  <D      rn 


s  P<a 


^'o   x 


2»     fe  r  2  *2 


03 

-  © 

«  3 


O     "*    o 

©  *  S 

w  ©  © 


c^s  © 


5H  » 

s  © 

2  fl 

«J  o 


c 


>    © 

W  5 


p— I      © 

^     S3 


=       O   5   S 


l_J 

C     ~ 

u 

© 

>-> 

m 

t£  — 

O  "T 

0 

r-H        <— ' 

'£      00 

02 

1       o^   g 


2  c  5 

ft 

o 


© 


©    © 

© 

'© 
—  T3 
© 

02  02 
—  -4— 
"^     02 

02     r- 

it   © 


2 


- 

3 

a 

E 


— 

—  — 

-  — 


L'  — 
"7    - 


- 

> 

/ 

*- 

-. 

tr* 

- 

= 

pM 

— 

J£ 

i 

O    ?>    0    C"^ 

—    ^     rt    e-1  -*-1 
£    rt  ~    "    3 

c  2  EH  „    * 

0           CD  -»J 

3  0  c!  'f^ 

03         a 

Ci     Cj     "      O     gq 

1-1      Ct      <— 

0  g-   ^Z-o 

-«         djCS^ 

a3   _   0   £r2 

ct  fc£  >>  ^.22 

,Q     S3     t-l            rr< 

rt  g-g-g  0 

££•£  »+» 

m   **  ^  r« 

:S  «  rt  „  a 

r—       _      03    -U 

0      >-.H  j. 

03     -                     rt 

«  ?.  a  h  E 

O   oa    S    O 

?h        Si  rrt  M 

5  +i  d 

■— 1  0  0  £ 

r— <       r-*      T  1      ^ 

^     Ss     2 

t»  _  .E  0  <o 

.  5  ^  ^  rt 

r=5      C               +J     j«j 

O                 M                 Q3 

C3      re    "£    «4-t 

H   £  2  0^ 

r^     -(--                   © 

o 

rt                r*       rt 

•  -+J    £     go    3 

-*— 

G3     03          13    O 

~ 

t>     Jh   r—           'C 

e 

opot/ft 

2  ?  -£-=  03 
£  s.  £      £ 
*  a/  ©  +>  ® 

£  +2    fcJD 

"« 

rt        rt  ^  "S 

S      03      C    r2 

to 

<*! 

o 
o 


■+-    .|-l       rt       S_,  >>^ 

£   «       ^  o 

^  JH  ^    rt  03 

*     £    -  r-J  Ph 


rt  rt  rt  ®  w 

-■-I     03  T3  ^ 

^r     ©  rt  2 

r^T3  ,o  >q  rQ 

w  «  -  ^  - 

Ef^_Prrt^ 

■"*    ^  ^    w    rt 

rt      rt      rj      -    rrt 

ri    ■—    —    — :    — 1 
S   '-f-"   rt    rt 

q-l  -^    >->  03  "J 

C       C       O       ^       ~ 
—     rrt       O      f* 

'rt 
02 


1  — 

I  ! 


-      '      z     ' 


*  s  =-  5 


/ 

CO 

:f  — 
bj 


-  —    -  -^ 


-  .  _  «w 

- 
/  .2 


>>   X   .1     ~ 


fi  rrt-a  ^  ■-  1 


«H    W    Zj    ©    S    I 

z       —  _E  -*  = 


DQ 

_ 

•■ 

/ 

i 

E1 

7 

4ti 

■Z 

- 

— 

— 

•— 
i 

- 

0 

— 

^-* 

/. 

1 

— 

— 

DC 

■  ~ 

^ 

z^ 

— 

:r 

— ' 

~"3* 

g 

~ 

— 

— 

•- 

— 

v 

_ 

•  — 

p 

^_ 

#     / 

*" 

p* 

-— 

t 

>• 

-* 

/ 

s 

"_ 

— 

u. 

~ 

~~ 

**■ 

/ 

2 

— 

♦j 

— 

_~ 

GO 

■+-" 

— 

» 

— 

__ 

*  — 

■— 

— 

n 

-  ■ 

Ej 

U- 

- 

~ 

~ 

~ 



^—~ 

« 

:/ 

- 

_  = 

i^* 

•— 

— 

•- 

.  — 

-* 

-^_ 

EC 

_   . 

— 

_ 

/ 

C 

-i 

:"[ 

.Z. 

:"/ 

4^ 

. 

J* 

•—    —  — •  _    — 


:i 


— 

5  ^d    P  j5 

~ 

' 

" 

•~            ZI 

— 

^oQo 

-- 

p— 

-  -    -* 

«4 

__ 

_—    *— 

—  ,      — 

:.  - 

*" 

*•— 

:i    - 

DO   _^ 


5      -       ~  :|  i-  -  — " 


£  3 

O     03 

2     DO 

r— «   »rH 
•  rH 

r-      HO 


OJ 


r*- 

.1— 1 

cd 

Pn 

OC 

■u 

o 

o 

DO 

(C 

~ 

BJ 

-IJ 

>1 



CD 

^H 

c: 

>>    C 

+-> 

H— 

n 

GO 

m 

•  rH 

P3 

■pH 

h-l 

CD 

,Ej 

HH 

o 

+-> 

— 

r-H 

O 

d 

-  r-  -*-1 

-  £  ii 

^  '53  «m 
o 

©  > 

•  S  i-*    |_| 

r!  •»    r- 

CO  -|— j    -» 

o  S3 


o 

p 

- 

a 

H 
m 

£ 

s 

H 

CO 

•  w 

o 

CD 

-4-J 
02 

■  •— 

c 

© 

•  rH 
rH 

CD 

• 

C 

rH 

H 

3 

Pn 

+a 

J^ 

r-H 

•^* 

cd 

-1 

r- H 

«3 

= 

OQ 

Fh 

CD 

•  r^ 

E> 

• 

■+J 

^ 

© 

S~*\ 

GO 

H— 

r-t 

-4-^> 

rH 

V 

»0 

iH 

= 

-4— 

rH 

^ 

'tic 

o 

7Z 

+3 

O 

•  F-l 

© 

o 

•o 

rH 

rH 

H 

^"^ 

© 

j_i 

CD 

p 

rJ 
rH 

o3 

+i 

15 

"*"" 

..^ 

^c 

CD 

i^ 

r*^ 

> 

n3 

03 

rH 

CO 

so 

SO 
GO 

5 

-e 

ft 

CD 

rH 

«■» 

** 

.  -— 

SH 

+3 

O 

r3 
b3 

o 

W 

r. 

r^ 

GO 
GO 

o 
3 

£ 

r^ 

O 

rH 

so 

rn 

« 

r- 

- 

CD 

-*-r 

cyo 

t§ 

o 

© 

•  r* 

CD 

c5" 

«w 

~ 

"^ 

^5 

o 

GO 

rO 

r* 

X 

rH 

o 

GO 

CO 

CD 

-M 

•*— 

> 

o 

r* 

*5i 

03 

a. 

H3 

Photo  by  Underwood  dk  Underwood  from   bones  owned  by  the  aui 

Base  of  orang  skull  at  bottom,  man  a1  top.     Note  the  median  bu! 

the  palatine  vault,  the  posterior  nasal  spine,  the  m  im,  the 

internal    and    external    plates,    the    scaphoid    fossa,    ' 
process  of  the  temporal   bone,  the  basilar   pr        - 
bone,  tin'  mastoid   process,  the  curves  of  cipital  bone.     Why 

do  the  text-books  of  biology  and  zoblog;  tain  1. 


Photo  by  Champlain. 

Triassic  Shoe  Sole  Fossil.  Note  stitches  remarkably  preserved  along 
outer  edge  of  welt,  particularly  so  on  upper  left-hand  margin  and 
lower   margin   a    little   to   left    of    center. 


Photo  hy  Champlain. 

Underside  of   Triassic  rock  bearing   shoe   sole    fossil.     Note   impr< 
sions  left  by  early  forms  of  life  from   the  Triassic   seas.     Geol- 
ogists, mineralogists  and  palaeontologists  refuse  to  recognize  this 
specimen.     The  difficulties   presented   by   i1    are   literally   I ■«•;• 
rational    explanation,   yet    as   a    fossil    it    is    incomparably    n 
definite  and  significant  than  so  many  of  the  weird  and  meaning- 
less   flints    from    which    "scientific"    deductions    are    constantly 
drawn. 


GOD— OR  GORILLA 

Dr.  William  D.  Matthew,  palaeontologist  of  the 
American  Museum  of  Natural  Histor  .  quoted  B 
saying  that  "it  is  the  most  perfect  piece  of  natural 
mimicry  that  I  have  ever  seen,  but  that  is  all.  It  La  not 
the  work  of  man.  Man  has  not  been  in  existence  much 
more  than  500,000  years  or  so  on  earth,  and  it  is  not 
believed  that  man  has  existed  on  this  continent  i'"i 
more  than  30,000  years.  That  is,  of  course,  only  an 
approximate  guess. 

"The  Triassic  formation  in  which  this  appear-  to 
have  been  found  might  have  been  300,000,000  years  <>M. 
Such  finds  are  made  every  now  and  then,  though  I  have 
never  seen  anything  so  extraordinary  as  this." 

Dr.  James  F.  Kemp,  professor  of  geology  at  Colum- 
bia University,  is  quoted  as  saying  that  "the  object 
is  the  most  surprising  imitation  by  nature  of  the  work- 
manship of  man  which  has  ever  come  to  my  attention, 
but  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  it  could  be  a 
genuine  fossil  because  the  evidence  is  overwhelming 
that  the  career  of  human  beings  on  earth  is  not  over 
half  a  million  years." 

Dr.  Herbert  P.  Whitlock,  curator,  Department  of 
Mineralogy,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History 
pronounced  it  "a  very  remarkable   specimen";   the 
"most  deceptive"  he  had  ever  seen. 

Obviously  any  authoritative  recognition  of  this  curi- 
ous fossil  will  upset  all  Darwinian  theories.  Yet  the 
sole  of  the  shoe  is  so  obviously  the  sole  of  a  shoe,  with 
its  bevelled  welt  and  hand-stitched  seams,  that  no  ob- 
server can  doubt  for  an  instant  either  its  origin  or 
nature.  It  certainly  is  the  product  of  a  human  hand, 
and  was  worn  on  a  human  foot. 

The  New  York  Times  says:  "It  would  fit  nicely  a 
boy  of  ten  or  twelve  years.  The  edges  are  as  smooth 
as  if  freshly  cut.  The  surprising  pari  of  it  is  what 
seems  to  be  a  double  line  of  stitches,  one  near  the  out- 


354  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

side  edge  of  the  sole  and  the  other  about  a  third  of  an 
inch  inside  the  first.  The  'leather'  is  thicker  inside 
the  inner  welting  and  appears  to  be  slightly  bevelled, 
so  that  at  the  margin,  half  an  inch  wide,  which  runs 
outside,  the  sole  is  something  like  an  eighth  of  an  inch 
thick.  The  symmetry  is  maintained  perfectly  through- 
out. The  perfect  lines  pursued  by  the  welting,  and  the 
appearance  of  hundreds  of  minute  holes  through  which 
the  sole  was  sewed  to  the  shoe  are  the  things  which 
make  the  object  such  an  extraordinary  freak  in  the 
eyes  of  the  scientists  who  examined  it. 

"The  edges  are  rounded  off  smoothly,  as  if  it  were 
freshly  cut  leather  from  an  expert  cobbler.  The  stone 
to  which  it  is  attached  is  about  the  size  of  a  brick.  The 
heel  and  part  of  the  sole  appear,  the  toe-end  being 
missing. ' ' 

"It  is  not  extraordinary, ' '  said  Professor  Kemp, 
"to  find  natural  imitations  of  bones  for  man's  handi- 
craft. They  turn  up  frequently.  But  this  is  by  far  the 
most  perfect  thing  of  the  kind  that  I  have  ever  seen. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
it  is  not  a  fossil,  but  an  accident.  If  it  were  a  fossil, 
it  would  probably  be  10,000,000  years  old,  or  older, 
because  it  appears  to  come  from  a  Triassic  formation. 
This  is  so  absolutely  certain  that  I  told  Mr.  Reid  that 
any  detailed  study  of  the  thing  by  microscope  or  other- 
wise is  useless." 

Mr.  Reid  himself  declares  that  "the  scientists  simply 
take  their  stand  that  the  Darwinian  theory  is  so  com- 
pletely proved  that  man  could  not  have  possibly  existed 
during  the  period  described  as  Triassic,  and  that  there- 
fore no  amount  of  evidence  would  convince  them  that 
it  is  a  genuine  fossil.  They  are  so  wedded  to  their 
theory  that  they  must  look  upon  it  as  a  freak  of 
nature." 

The  writer,  who  was  privileged  to  have  the  specimen 


GOD— OR  GORILLA 

in  his  possession  for  a  period  of  two  weeks,  caused  it 
to  be  photographed  in  its  natural  colors  l.\  the  pr 
known  as  Autochromes  Lumiere,  thus  preserving  for 
all  time  some  of  the  extraordinary  characteristics  pro- 
nounced "freakish"  bv  men  of  science. 

Micro-photographs  taken  at  the  Rockefeller  [nstitnl 
bring  out  unmistakably  the  evidence's  of  a  very  regular 
and  very  precise  method  of  stitching.  In  addition  to 
the  color  of  leather,  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  blue  Lime 
stone  base,  another  striking  feature  of  the  fossil  is  that 
the  right-hand  side  of  the  heel  is  slightly  worn  down, 
resembling  what  takes  place  in  the  wear  of  the  modern 
shoe. 

Moreover,  there  is  a  slight  depression  in  the  rock 
itself,  showing  that  it  was  in  the  formative  stage  of 
pliability  at  the  time  the  sole  was  impressed  upon  it. 
Had  the  rock  not  been  soft  at  that  time,  the  accommo- 
dating impression  could  have  been  made  only  by  the 
use  of  a  mechanical  instrument. 

Professor  Matthew,  protesting  against  the  publicity 
given  to  his  views,  declared  in  a  written  communica- 
tion to  the  New  York  Globe,  March  21,  1922,  that  he 
had  "said  nothing  about  evolution,  but  had  explained 
to  Mr.  Reid  the  utter  impossibility  of  Connecticut  shoe 
factories  dating  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  age 
reptiles."  Responding  to  a  wholly  gratuitous  impulse 
to  lug  the  writer  into  the  controversy,  he  declared: 
"If  Mr.  McCann  thinks  himself  a  better  judge  of  I 
sils  than  I  am,  he  is  quite  welcome  to  his  opinion.' 

To  this  the  owner  of  the  fossil  replied:  "Before 
I  departed  from  the  presence  of  Professor  Matthew, 
I  asked  him  these  two  questions:  Ms  this  a  fossil?1  to 
which  he  answered,  'Yes;  it  is.*  'Would  you  care  to 
sav  that  it  is  not  the  bottom  of  a  shoe?'  lie  answered  : 
'No;  I  wouldn't  do  that.    It  would  remove  any  qu< 


356  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

tion  of  doubt  of  the  fossil  being  leather  if  we  made 
a  cross  section  for  microscopic  examination. ' 

"I  suggested  to  the  professor  that  his  proposal  in- 
volved the  necessity  of  assuming  that  men  living  in 
the  Triassic  period  really  used  leather  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  soles  of  their  shoes  or  sandals.  The  very 
existence  of  leather  in  the  Triassic  would  prove  the 
existence  of  the  hides  from  which  the  leather  was 
tanned.  These  hides  would  prove  the  existence  of  ani- 
mals. 

"The  hopelessness  of  the  puzzle  was  thus  empha- 
sized for  the  very  good  reason  that  the  professors  be- 
gan their  examination  of  the  specimen  with  the  con- 
viction that  there  were  no  animals  of  any  kind  from 
which  to  obtain  leather,  or  which  might  wear  shoes 
back  there  in  the  Triassic. 

1  i  Their  unwillingness  to  give  this  specimen  adequate 
scrutiny,  and  their  unwillingness  to  reserve  pronounc- 
ing public  judgment  upon  it  is  hardly  what  one  might 
expect  from  scientific  investigators. 

"Professor  Matthew  said  nothing  about  the  utter 
impossibility  of  Connecticut  shoe  factories  dating  back 
to  the  beginning  of  the  age  of  reptiles.  No  one  ever 
suggested  that  a  Connecticut  shoe  factory  was  operat- 
ing in  Nevada  some  36,000,000  years  ago.  Had  any 
shoe  factory  been  operating  in  Nevada  at  that  time,  it 
would  have  been  operating  in  Nevada,  not  in  Connec- 
ticut. 

"I  have  been  careful  in  seriously  submitting  this 
Triassic  specimen  to  the  attention  of  scientific  men  to 
avoid  always  any  suggestion  of  the  frivolous  or  ridicu- 
lous, neither  of  which  has  any  place  in  scientific  consid- 
erations. ' ' 

In  the  meantime,  the  senior  member  of  J.  &  J. 
Slater,  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York,  declares  that  "the 


GOD— OR  GORILLA  357 

fossil  sole  is  identical  with  the  styles  manufactured 
in  Europe  about  300  years  ago." 

Of  course  no  one  believes  that  man  was  on  the  fa 
of  the  earth  with  the  Trilobites  in  the  Triassic,  mil- 
lions of  years  ago,  nor  can  any  one  believe,  who  has 
seen  this  extraordinary  specimen,  with  its  extraordi 
nary  leather  coloration,  its  extraordinary  double- 
seamed  welt  extending  from  the  instep  around  the  heel, 
its  very  startling  revelation  of  the  fact  thai  it  was  im- 
bedded in  a  matrix  of  Triassic  blue  limestone  at  a  time 
when  the  latter  was  still  in  the  process  of  hardening, 
that  it  is  "a  freak  of  nature.' ' 

The  explanation  is  to  be  found  along  other  lin< 
But  how  is  it  to  be  found  if  the  scientists  refuse  to 
heed  the  facts,  a  custom  which  they  have  not  followed, 
when  interpreting  in  their  own  astonishing  way  tfa 
nificance  of  flints  manufactured  under  their  own  eyes 
by  Mother  Nature  as  " proof  that  man  lived  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  years  ago"? 


Note  on  " Fossilized' ' 

That  wholly  unexpected  and  astonishing  phenomena, 
of  geological  and  physico-chemical  character,  can  and 
do  occur  in  short  periods  of  time  is  well  established. 

In  connection  with  the  fossilization  of  the  Triassic 
shoe  sole,  so-called,  John  T.  Reid  reported  to  the  writer 
the  discovery  of  a  petrified  body  in  a  graveyard  at 
Paradise  Valley,  Humboldt  County,  Nevada,  declaring 
that  the  body  had  been  in  the  ground  bu1  six  years. 
The  body  had  been  that  of  the  wife  of  a  miner  who, 
on  her  deathbed,  had  extracted  from  her  husband  the 
promise  that  he  would  remove  her  remains  to  t li- 
as soon  as  he  could. 

At  the  end  of  six  years  he  undertook  to  discharge 


358  GOD— OR  GORILLA 

his  promise.  With  great  difficulty  the  body  was  ex- 
humed in  a  completely  petrified  condition. 

If  the  facts  were  as  stated,  it  follows  that  within  the 
short  period  of  six  years  the  body  had  been  subjected 
to  such  a  bombardment  of  mineral  atoms  as.  was  neces- 
sary to  the  achievement  of  the  extraordinary  results 
reported. 

Mr.  Reid  remembered  that  one  of  the  persons  who 
assisted  in  exhuming  the  body  at  Paradise  Valley  was 
one  Willis  C.  Green,  whom  he  had  neither  seen  nor 
heard  of  "for  six  or  seven  years.' ' 

In  an  effort  to  corroborate  or  refute  the  report,  the 
writer  began  at  once  to  communicate  with  public  offi- 
cials in  Nevada  who  might  be  able  to  locate  i '  a  certain 
Willis  C.  Green,  who,  while  working  at  Swails  Moun- 
tain some  six  or  seven  years  ago,  resided  at  Carlin, 
Nevada.' ' 

Under  date  of  March  31, 1922,  M.  J.  Keith  replied  to 
a  letter  addressed  by  the  writer  to  Miss  Mattie  Keith, 
County  Clerk,  Elko  County,  Elko,  Nevada,  with  the 
information  that  a  Mr.  Willis  Green  is  the  undertaker 
at  Battle  Mountain,  Nevada." 

This  communication  was  received  April  4,  1922, 
whereupon  the  writer  sent  a  Western  Union  telegram 
to  Mr.  Willis  Green,  Battle  Mountain,  Nevada,  which 
read  as  follows:  "John  T.  Reid  of  Lovelock,  Nevada, 
now  in  New  York,  informs  me  of  your  experience  with 
a  petrified  body  that  had  been  in  the  ground  but  six 
years.  Scientific  interest  urges  me  to  appeal  to  you  for 
facts  and  details.  Will  thank  you  to  rush  reply  by 
wire  collect." 

Any  jury  in  any  court  of  law  in  America  would 
accept  the  corroboration  of  the  original  report  as  made 
by  Mr.  Reid.  It  came  in  the  form  of  a  Western  Union 
telegram  and  speaks  for  itself : 


GOD— OR  GORILLA 

WESTERN  UNION 

TELEGRAM 

RECEIVED  AT  19!>  BROADWAY  N.Y.  L922  AIM:   5   r 

C141SF  157  COLLECT  NPR 

BATTLEMOUNTAIN  NEV  4 

ALFRED  MCCANN 

NEW  YORK  C.LOBE  NEW  YORK   XV 
REPLYING  TO  YOUR  WIRE  OF  TODAY   IN  L887  I  W\s  IN  PARA- 
DISE    VALLEY     IIUMBOLT    ('oI'NTV     NEVADA     PROSPECTING 
STOP  I  WAS  ASKED  TO  ASSIST  TO   EXHUME  THE  BODY  01 
WOMAN  WHO  HAD  BERN  BURIKh   IN   THE   [/>  AL  CEMETERY 
OF   PARADISE   SIX    YEARS   PREVIOUSLY    STOP    THE    FOR 
TION  OF  THE  SOIL  IN   THE    VICINITY    is    A    CEMENT    LIME 
FORMATION  STOP  AFTER   MAKING    THE    NECESSARY    EXCA 
VATION  WE  FOUND  THE  BODY  OF  A   WOMAN   AND  CHILD   [N 
THE  SAME  CASKET  BOTH    BOI  >I  ES  SEKMI  N( ;  LY    HAVING    I 
RIFIED  STOP  THE  WEIGHT  OF  THE  BODIES  WAS  BEA1 

TO  NECESSITATE  THE  USE  OF  AN  CMPROVED  DERRICK  AND 
BLOCK  AND  TACKLE  TO  REMOVE  THEM  PROM  THE  GRAVE 
STOP  THE  HUSBAND  OF  THE  WOMAN  WHO  CAUSED  THE  EX 
HUMATION  IMMEDIATELY  BOXED  THE  REMAINS  OP  AND 
SHIPPED  THE  SAME  TO  SOME  POINT  IN  THE  EAST  STOP  I 
DO  NOT  KNOW  THE  NAME  OF  THE  PARTY  BUT  AM  FAMILIAR 
WITH  THE  LOCATION  OF  THE  GRAVE 

WILLIS  C  GREEN 

Under  ordinary  circumstances,  had  one  not  known 
the  true  history  of  these  bodies,  they  could  have  been 
loosely   but   scientifically   described   as   " fossilized.1 
Moreover,  they  might  have  been  30,000  years  old.    Ap- 
parently fossils  don't  always  tell  the  truth. 


INDEX 


Abraham,  Seed  of,  206 

Acrobats  of  evolution.  83 

Age,  Against  great,  38  ;  of  world,  48, 

73,  74,  289,  290,  291 
Allelomorphs,    1!>4 
Alluvial  loam,  lost  evidence,  44 
Alsberg,   27 
Anatomy      Comparative,      189 ;      gee 

Blood 
Ancestral    Tree,    growing    your    own, 

85 
Ant,     blood-red     robber,     and    guest, 

100 ;     in    amber,    201  ;     ants    and 

white  ants,  212,  213 
Ape,    as    servant    of    man,    86 ;    new 

kind    necessary,    87 ;    species    fixed 

irrevocably,  201,  202 
Ape-Man,    Another    try    at,    56,    57 ; 

unknown    ancestor,     90,     92,     93 ; 

without  a  tail,  156,  157 
Appendix,   125 
Arbuckle,    19 

Archipithecus,    Haeckel,    52 
Aristotle,  135  ;  on  fleas,  lice,  moths, 

2G1 
Art,  of  cave  man,  307,  308,  309 
Artificial     selection    versus    natural, 

195    196 
Augustine,    259,    260,    261,   262,    268, 

287 
Australian   skulls,    43 ;   not  neander- 

thaloid,   59 

B 

Ballou,  on  tails,  26 

Banolas  jaw,  69 

Bardon,   57 

Barrell,  292 

Bateson,  97,  159 ;  against  Darwin- 
ism, 201,  205,  206,  207  ;  on 
egotism,  208,  210 ;  on  mistakes 
of  naturalists,  279 ;  on  loss  of 
characters,  279 ;  on  hopeless  ig- 
norance of  evolutionists,  280 ;  on 
reconstructing  pedigrees,  282 ;  on 
abandonment  of  single  cell  theory, 
283 ;  on  darkening  of  the  under- 
standing, 284  ;  on  dog  from  wolf 
and    monkey  from   man,    285 

Bats,  never  evoluted,    183,   184 

Beagle,  H.M.S.,  133,   314 

Beasts,  Evidence  of,  301,  302,  303 

Bee,  Mason,  222-228 

Beethoven,   205 


Bernhardi,  329 

Bier,     on     expediency     of     Inflamma- 
tions.  126 

Biological    "proofs"     100,    no,    in, 
1  L2,  113,  114,  3  15,   116.   117  ;  Justl 
QcatiOD  of  w:ir,  .'IL'T  880 

Birds.  Btructnre  of,  248,  245,  246; 
temperature  <>f.  2  VA 

Birkner,    til' 

Bismarck's  skull,  32 

Black,    Modern    Australian,    43,    1" 

Blake,  85 

Blanchard,  120 

Blood,    Resemblance    of   ape    to    hu- 
man,     li'ti.      127;      Inoculations, 
horse,   goat,    etc.,    lliT.    128;    r> 
tion.    128,    129;    versus    Beed,    206 

Blatchford,     on     irresponsibility 
criminals,    273 

Blind  Staggers,  86 

Bones,  Difference  between  man  and 
ape,  24,  134  ;   reverence  for,   139 

Bolk,  on  dietetic  cause  of  change  of 
ape   into   man,   L' 17 

Boule,   12,   13,   14,  57,  58,  59.  69,  79 

Bouyssoine,   57 

Branchial  arches  and  clefts,  113, 
114 

Branco,  17,  18  ;  refutation  of 
Haeckel's  last  link,  5]  ;  paleon- 
tology knows  no  ancestors  of 
man,  52 

Brehm,   215 

Breuil,   96 

Brisbane,  51,   113 

Britton,    15 

Broca,  66 

Brooks,   204 

Bruckner,   291 

Brumpt,  on  blood  reaction,  128 

Brunn   remains,    69 

Brutes,  Intelligence  of,  246,  247 

Brux   remains,   <;;» 

Bryan,    267 

Biichner,    215 

Buffon,   204 

Bulkley,  on  cancer  in  apes  and  man, 
130  ' 

Burbank,    195 

Irishman,   Australian. 


Cancer,  apes  and  man.  180 
Canine,  misplaced.  7.  s.  *j 
Cannibalistic  I 

Canstadt    remains,    69 


361 


362 


INDEX 


Capitan,  69 

Carlyle,  143 

Carpentier,  15 

Caruso,   205,   221 

Cat  cemeteries,   218,   219 

Cave  Man,  a  superior  being,  306, 
307,    308,    309,    310 

Cell,  Mechanical  division  of,  110 ; 
difference  of  in  species,  123 ;  de- 
velopment  of,    110-117 

Chaplin,  19 

Chimpanzee  of  Africa,  ribs  of,  24 ; 
off  the  tree,  81,  82 ;  syphilis  in, 
128,  129  ;  Haeckel's  forgeries,  154, 
155,  156 ;  retains  supraorbital 
ridges,   158 

Chromosomes,  193,  194,  195,  200, 
201     202     203 

Church,  Views  of  Catholic,  258,  259, 
260,  262  ;  views  of  Lutheran,  251, 
263 

Clodd,  on  Spencer's  claim  to  Dar- 
win's fame,  239,  240 

Coleman,   125 

Comb-Capelle  remains,  69 

Conklin,  on  limits  of  evolution  and 
cell  complexity,  187,  188 ;  on 
biblical  narrative  of  creation,  286, 
287 

Contemporary  Races  must  be 
ignored,   83,   84 

Convergence,   Evidence  of,   252 

Cook,  145 

Cope,  204 

Copeland,  on  mutations  of  De  Vries, 
199 

Correns,  97 ;  discovery  of  Mendel, 
191 

Cranial  capacity,  5,  6,  29,  35,  39, 
55,  56,  65,  73,  133,  134  ;  of  thirty- 
six   Macnamara   skulls,    43 

Creation,    Six   Days   of,   286-312 

Crime,    chemical    origin    of,    216 

Cro-Magnon  Man,  20,  26,  39,  79,  81, 
82 ;  absurd  suppression  of,  83 


D 


Darwin,  Charles,  on  man's  an- 
cestors, 22,  109  ^  ignored  Git> 
raltar  skull,  67  ;  natural  selec- 
tion, 107  ;  immutability  of  species, 
106,  107  ;  on  God,  102,  107,  114  ; 
inability  to  prove  evolution  of  a 
single  species,  108,  302 ;  hybrids, 
108,  109  ;  on  the  eye,  113  ;  differ- 
ences between  man  and  beast,  132, 
133 ;  Hipparion  contradiction, 
177  ;  versus  De  Vries,  199  ;  critics 
of,  199 ;  loss  of  authority,  203, 
204 ;  on  the  bee,  223,  259 ;  on 
mammary  glands,  228,  229 ;  pre- 
ceded by  Augustine,  259  ;  on  blind 
chance,  254  ;  on  Lyell,  314  ;  influ- 
ence on  war,  327-330 ;  conscious 
of  garbled   Darwinism,   330-332 

Darwinism,  garbled  by  Haeckel,  105, 
117 ;  rejected  by  Blanchard, 
Wigand,  Wolff,  Hamann,  Pauly, 
Driesch,      Plate,     Hertwig,      Heer, 


Koiliker,  Elmer,  Von  Hartmann, 
Schilde,  DuBois-Reymond,  Vir- 
chow,  Naegeli,  Schaaffhausen, 
Fechner,  Jakob,  Diebolder,  Huber, 
Ranke,  VonBauer,  120  ;  rejected  by 
Romanes,  Vines,  Lodge,  120 ; 
Fabre,  A.  Smith  Woodward,  De 
Vries,  122,  123;  rejected  by  Bate- 
son,  206 

Darwin,  H.  G.,  289 

Davenport,  on  chemical  origin  of 
crime,   216 

Davis,   35 

Dawkins,  7 

Dawn  Man,  11 

Dawson,  Charles,  4,  5 

Dawson,  J.  W.,  on  horses,  176 ;  on 
whales,   182  ;  on  bats,   184 

Dawson,  Sir  William,  on  abrupt  ap- 
pearance of  species,   302,   303 

De  Geers,  on  age  of  Glacial  Epoch, 
74 

Degeneration,  existence  of  modern 
type  long  before  Neanderthal  type 
proof  of  degeneration  downward 
— not  evolution  upward,  288  ;  not 
evolution,    310,    311,    312 

Delage,   203 

Delbouf,    203 

Dempsey,  15 

Depe'ret,  on  Haeckel's  embryos,  64, 
156 

Development  of  cell,  110-117 

De  Vries,  97 ;  sudden  changes,  123 ; 
waves  of  evolution,  188 ;  on 
Oenothera,  191  ;  criticism  of,  196, 
197,  198;  in  conflict  with  Stand- 
fuss,  211,  212  ;  reversing  position 
of  older  evolutionists,  304 

Dewar,  on  interplanetary  migration, 
97 

Diebolder,  120 

Diener,  212 

Ditmars,   91,   92 

Dog  cemeteries,  218,  219 

Donezetti,  220 

Doyle,   on  immortality,   269 

Driesch,  120 

Driver,  on  age  of  man,  289 

Dubois,  Eugene,  20,   23 

DuBois-Reymond,  120 ;  on  Haeckel's 
pedigree,    162 

Dudgeon,  on  interplanetary  migra- 
tion,  97 

Dwight,  on  degeneration  of  Neander- 
thal man,  288 


E 

Eoanthropus,  12 

Earth,  Age  of,  Astronomers'  esti- 
mate, 73,  292,  293  J  geologists' 
estimate,    65,    289,    290,    291 

Eugenics,  Second  International  Con- 
gress of,  216 

Eguisheim  remains,  69 

Elephant,  Proboscis  of,  compared 
with   giraffe,   253 

Ellicott,   292 

Elliot,  Henry  W.,  264 


INDEX 


363 


Elliot,  Scott,  on  superiority  of  Ne- 
anderthal  skulls,    84 

Embryo,  Haeckel's  forgeries,  04,  117, 
153-9  ;  of  man  and  dog,  109  ;  fol- 
lows fixed  law,  110,  ill,  111?,  113, 
114,  115;  differences  are  absolute, 
116,  117  ;  see  Haeckel's  falsifica- 
tions,  153-9 

Embryology,  Fanciful  speculations 
of,   114,   115 

Engels,   320 

Eskimo,  skull,  modern,  same  features 
in  Heidelberg  skull,  17,  02 

Evolution,  off  the  track,  63,  64 ; 
plaything  of  romancers,  80 ;  be- 
wilders Darwin,  178,  179 ;  pro- 
gresses backward,  181  ;  answers 
no  questions,  182 ;  monophyletic, 
187  ;  rate  of  movement,  189  :  law 
or  accident,  203 ;  polyphyletic, 
211  ;  monopbyle,tic  versus  poly- 
phyletic, 222 ;  defies  human  rea- 
son, 274,  279,  283  ;  and  defenera- 
tion, 310,  311,  312  ;  and  war,  313, 
331  ;  effect  on  Catholicism,  322, 
323 ;  on  Protestantism,  321,  322  ; 
on  socialism,  326,  327 ;  on  Nihil- 
ism, 327  ;  on  militarism,  327,  328, 
329 ;    on    fatalism,    330,    331 

Eye,  Origin  of,  113,  114 

F 

Fabre,    on       ignorance,   122  ;    on   in- 
stinct    versus     intelligence,     223, 
224,   225,   247 
Falconer,   vagueness  concerning  Gib- 
raltar skull,  66 
Fechner,    120 

Ferrassie,  La,  skeletons,  69 
Ferri,   on    irresponsibility    for   crime, 

272,    273 
Filhol's    armadillo,    confusing    mam- 
mal with  snake,   253 
Fingerprints  of  monkeys,  93,  94 
Fischer,   on  age   of  world,   289 
Fish    and    Fowl,    Evidence    of,    299, 

300 
Flint,  66 

Floods,  of  Osborn,   30 
Foot,   human    versus   ape,    183 
Fossil,   Pro-simiae,   thirty  genera   of, 
41 ;   apes,   eighteen   genera  of,   41  ; 
ape-man,  no  trace  of,   44 
Ford,  on  purple  cows,  98,  99 
Foreyarms,     embarrassing    shortness 

of  in  Spy  skeletons,  56 
Frank,    evolutional    despair,    64 :    on 

hopeless   difficulties,    71,    72,    73 
Friedenthal,    embarrassed    by     blood 

reaction,    129 
Frog  egg,  a  law  unto   itself,   110 
Fuegians,  delighted   Darwin,  133;  re- 
garded as  degenerates  by  Haeckel, 
311     312 
Fuhlrott,    33,   34,   44 
Fuhrfooz,   79 


Galley  Hill  Man,  47,  69 
Galton,  203 


Genealogical     tr- 

iir,,    iiT 

Genes.  198  i  !hrom< 

I  lenel  lc   acl  h  it y,   Buddi  n   ap|  ■ 
:ui(]   sudden   end   of,    186 

Gibbon  <>r  Asia,  rlbi  of,  2 » ;  --fr  the 
tree,  81 

Gibraltar    Man,   84,   88    • 
Gibraltar  skull,   supraorbital   arch 
marked    and     bea n .    88  ;    sui 
orbital    ridges    slightly    develoi 
88 ;    most  lmportanl    missing  link, 
69 

Gilbert,   <>n   age  of  man,   •_■  -  B 

Giraffe,     neck     of,     compared     with 
mcklcss   elephant,    '2 

Goat,  man  a  genuine,    128 

Gorilla    of    Africa,    dorsal    vert< 
of,   'J )  ;   skeleton,  56  ;  <>(T  the   t  ■ 
81;    Haeckel's  ered    skeleton,    155 

<  Iregory,    <ui     Piltdown    canine,     7  ; 
fingerprints    of    up-        98 

GrimaldJ   skeletons,   70 

II 

Haeckel,     Ern^t,     23.     38,     40,     50; 
pedigree     of     fictitious     creatun 
51,   162;   falsifications,    51.    158  8  ; 
refuted    by    Branco,    58,    81; 
representing   Darwinism,   100.    101, 
102;   on  ancestral   forms,   111;   in- 
venting    species,     i"-.,>..     159;     on 
Protestant    Jesuits.    155;    tamper- 
ing   with    Illustrations,    154  157 ; 
intestinal    worms,    1 7 1  ;    on    Bpal< 
lanzani,    261,    32."'. ;    on    degenera 
tion,  810,  811,  812;  on  Augustine, 
261,  323;  on  Pasteur,  323,  324, 

Hull,    260 

Hamann,    120 

Hamy,  66 

Hand,    Human,   versus   tortoi^ 
184 

Ha  user,  68 

Hayes,  312,   313.  816,  317,   328 

Heer,    120 

Heidelberg   races.   12.    18,    17:    n 
anderthal  in   the   making.   60;   one 
of    the    great    missing    link--.    61  : 
vagueness  of  other   characters   "f. 
61,   02  :    Beldelberg   man,   61,    E 
same   features    in    modern    INK 
skull.   02 ;    Beldelberg  Jaw.   78.    79 

Helm,   on    posl  glacial    period,    '-"••l 

Bertwlg,    16,    l-'1 :    <>n    n<  <>f 

continuous  advance,   1 1 1 

Homer's     heroes,     versus     Baecl 
pedigree,    162 

Bomo  Primogenus,  45 

Bomo  Stupidua  :,;; 

Bornaday,    on    seals,    263, 

Horse,    blood    of  and    man,    128;    n< 't 
fouml     among    pred 
appeared    before    an<  I 

becomes    const*  rnation    of    ei  olu 
tion,     168  161  ;     Old     World     li: 
107  17  I 

Hrdlieka.    on     Piltdown    cranium. 
on  erroneous  measurement,   14;  on 
hidden   Trinll    bom        -  •  .   on    Publ- 


364 


INDEX 


rott  fossil,  34 ;  on  Neanderthal 
skull-cap  and  white  man,  35,  36  ; 
influenced  by  Ilaeckel,  37 ;  dis- 
misses Spy  bones,  55 ;  on  "squat 
ferocity",  GO ;  on  Gibraltar  man, 
260,  303,  304  ;  on  nothing  to 
judge,  66 ;  contradicting  Osborn, 
67 ;  on  "partly  evolved"  lower 
races,  70  ;  on  Jersey  teeth  versus 
pre-human  forms,  76 ;  silent  on 
Grimaldi    remains,    79 

Huber,  120 

Hull,  on  Augustinian  evolution,  260, 
303,   304 

Husslein,  on  Piltdown  normalcy,  17  ; 
on  Augustinian  evolution,  192  ; 
on  Haeckel's  denial  of  free  will, 
273  ;  on  Mosaic  narrative  of  crea- 
tion,   293,    294,    295 

Hutchison,    asses'    milk,    131 

Huxley,  on  quality  of  cerebral  sub- 
stance, 59 ;  on  philosopher-like 
Cro-Magnon  skull,  83 ;  on  danger 
of  theories,  118 ;  reliance  upon 
palaeontology,  119 ;  tricked  by 
Haeckel,  153,  154 ;  criticized  by 
Wallace,  159,  160 ;  on  sub-horse, 
163-172  ;  confusion  of,  239  ;  power 
to  tear  heart  out  of  book,  240 ; 
attack    on    religion,    320 

Hybrids,  103-109,  198,  280,  281,  282 


monkeys  and  apes,  128,  129 ;  on 
supra-orbital  ridges  of  negro  and 
Chinaman,    306 

Kellogg,  2,  124 

Kelvin,  on  age  of  the  earth,  289 

Kennel,  placenta  in  Arthropods,   136 

Kilbane,    15 

Klaatsch,  on  Piltdown  monstrosity, 
16 ;  on  Trinil  hoax,  27  ;  versus 
Ranke,  40,  41  ;  on  Moustier  youth, 
68 

Klebs,  rejection  of  mutation  theory, 
199 

Knight,  on  Neanderthal  passions, 
13 ;  height,  14 ;  versus  Jimmy 
Wilde  and  Jess  Willard,  16 ;  pic- 
ture of  Neandelthal  man,  55 

Knowles,  reconstruction  of  St.  Bre- 
lade   dental  arches,   76 

Koch,  on  obliteration  of  appendix 
cavity,  125 

Koken,  212 

Kolliker,    120 

Kramberger,  on  Heidelberg  simi- 
larity to  Eskimo,  17 ;  on  modern 
jaw,  46  ;  on  Galley  Hill  astonish- 
ment, 47  ;  on  contemporaneous  ex- 
istence of  Trinil  ape  and  homo 
sapiens,  49 ;  on  Krapina  bones, 
56 

Krapina  jaw,  39,  61,  78 ;  Krapina 
remains  like  modern   man,   46,   56 


Instinct  of  animals  not  intelligence, 
225-230 

Intellectual  life  versus  brute  in- 
stinct    219     220     221 

Intelligence  of  brutes,  185,  186,  225, 
226,  227,  228,  229,  230,  232,  233, 
241 

Interplanetary  migration,  97 

Ipswich    remains,    69 

Irving,   36 


Jakob,   120 

Jennings,  on  heredity,  193,  194 

Jerome,    Saint,    on    appearances    of 

things,   292,    293 
Joly,  on  age  of  man,  288 


Kangaroo,  complications  of,  234, 
235,   236 

Kane,  on  Augustinian  evolution, 
259 

Kayser,  methods  of  age  determina- 
tion,  71 

Keith,  on  Piltdown  skull,  6  ;  on  im- 
possible animal,  16 ;  on  offsetting 
Piltdown  damage,  40 ;  on  Galley 
Hill  man,  48  ;  on  gorilla  skeleton, 
56 ;  on  superiority  of  Neander- 
thal skulls,  84  ;  on  Gibraltar  skull, 
64 ;  on  existence  of  modern  man 
before  Neanderthal  proving  degen- 
eration,   70,    288 ;    on    syphilis    in 


La  Chapelle-aux-Saints  skull,  39,  57  ; 
actual  examination  of  brain,  58; 
exactly  half  way,  61 

La   Fayette,    36 

La  Ferrassie  skeletons,  69 

Lamarck,   206 

Land,   Appearance  of,   297 

La   Naulette   jaw,    69 

Lankester,  on  Piltdown  hoax,  9  ;  on 
keeping  Piltdown  bones  apart,  42, 
139 

Laplace,   Nebular  hypothesis  of,   292 

Lapp  skull.  Modern,  45 

La  Quina  Lady,   60 

Lasson,  on  the  survival  of  the  fittest 
in  war,   329,   330 

Lauder,  208 

Le   Dantec,   204 

Le  Moustier  skull,  39 ;  Le  Moustier 
man,   68 

Leo  XIII.,  on  evolution,  258 ;  open- 
ing of  Vatican  library,  323  ;  Vati- 
can observatory,  323 

Leonard,    versus    Knight,    15 

Lister,   209 

Lissauer's  diograph  by  Macnamara, 
43 

Liver  of  gorilla,  24 

Lizard  theory  versus  Tortoise 
theory,  25,   143 

Lodge,   on  immortality,   269 

Loeb,  on  constancy  of  species,  202 ; 
on    chromosomes,    202 

Lohest,   55 

Lombard,  on  Augustinian  evolution, 
261 


INDEX 


365 


Longfellow,   209 

Lotsy,  exposure  of  artificiality  of 
systematic    zoology,    20\S 

Lubbock,  on  Trinil  Ape-Man,  23,  24  ; 
on  quality  of  cerebral  substance, 
58 ;  on  contemporaries  of  Nean- 
derthals,  83,   288 

Lucas,  on  Osborn's  bull  seals,  265, 
206 

Lucretius,   206 

Lydekker,    on    Trinil    Ape-Man,    24 

Lyell,  on  waiting  for  the  missing 
link,  02 :  on  shell  fish  of  pliocene 
and  today,  231  ;  on  the  giraffe, 
254  ;  on  age  of  Niagara,  289  ; 
on  earth's  present  appearance, 
314,  315 :  influence  on  Darwin, 
254,  314,  350 


M 


MaeCurdy.  on  Piltdown  hoax,   10 

Macnamara,  on  thirty-six  Australian 
skulls,   45 

Malarnaud  jaws,   39,  61.  69 

Males  of  Central  Europe,  cranial 
capacity,  31 

Malthus,  on  struggle  for  existence, 
314 ;  influence  on  Darwin,  314, 
315 

Mammal,  most  primitive  Eocene, 
182 

Mammary  glands.   228 

Man,  superior,  15,  305  ;  tailless,  26, 
157,  158  ;  not  descended  from  any 
known  form  of  ape,  living  or  fos- 
sil, 49;  art  of.  307-310  (see 
Krapina.  Heidelberg,  Piltdown, 
Galley  Hill,  Keith  Cro-Magnon, 
Neanderthal.  Dwight,  Spy,  Tor- 
toise, Lizard,  Ribs,  Vertebra?, 
hand,  foot)  ;  a  genuine  horse, 
130  ;  a  genuine  goat,  130 ;  a  gen- 
uine sheep,  135 

Marsh,    on    undiscovered    horse,    175 

Marshall,  on  ITaeckel's  human  em- 
bryo. 102,  117,  157  (see  Haeckel's 
falsifications'! 

Martin,  construction  of  La  Quina 
female,  60 

Marx,  influenced  by  evolution,  326, 
327 

Mascre.  conception  of  gentle  Trinil 
ape,  19 

Mi  ska.  discovers  much-searched-for 
bridge,  69 

Matthew,  on  bad  influence  of  expos- 
ing frauds,  10 

Mauer  jaw    (see  Heidelberg  man) 

Maxwell,  on  electro-magnetic  theory 
of   light,    292 

McCregor,  on  busts,  1  ;  on  long  hair 
and  heavy  beard.  19  ;  busting  the 
Neanderthals,  40 ;  on  a  big  bust, 
59 

Measurements  differing  from  origi- 
nals,  29 

Meat,  cause  of  ape's  change  to  man, 
219 

Mendel,     96,     97 :     on     sorting     out 


genes,    106;    demands    of.    198;    es- 
tablishing   order.     208,     24) »  ; 
operation!    of    Mendel    Ian     277- 
282  ;    oo    natural 
llglon,   822 

Mendelssohn,  219 

Metcbnikoff,     on      blood     of     hor<:<\ 

sheep,    goal     ■'Hid    man,     1 

Milf<.    human    and   asses.    181 

Miller,  on  patting  teeth  whore  they 
belong,   7 

Missing  links,  how  they  were  found 
and    lost   again.  78 ;   rede 
entocn     to    nothing.     78,     79 
waiting    for    them,    85, 

Mivart,  on   Kills,    lit;   on    frn^     110; 
on    laws.    118;   on    horse,    17 
bats,    184 ;    on    stumbling    blocks, 
18".;    difference    between    opossum 
and    other   beasts,    282,    2 

Moreaux,   on    age   01   human    rare.    7  1 

Iforgan,    and     Mendejtom,     97 
tampering     with     characters.      1 
19«i:    work    of,     i>i 

Morlot.   on   riven,    291 

Morphological      "proofs",      111.      112, 
113.  114,   115,    116,   117.    118,    1 19, 
124,   125.   126,   127.    128,    129,    ' 
131:       generaltsatli  throwing 

biology  into  confusion.    117,    11^ 

Moustier  skull.  39;  man,  68 

Muckermann.   L'?7 

Miiller,  placenta  of  smooth  shark, 
135 

Music  and  evolution.   219 

Mutations.  193,  194,  196,  196,  197, 
198,   199 

N 

Naegeli,  120,  204 

Natural  selection,  not  selertinp.  1, 
2;  versus  artificial.  197,  198; 
freakish    in    the  of  the   giraffe 

and  elephant,  253 

Naulette.  La,   jaw,  69 

Neanderthal  Man,  12,  18,  14, 
Knight's  picture  of,  I  I,  55  ;  height 
of.  1 5  16,  1 7.  57  :  related  to 
Trinil.  23,  'i:>.  28  27,  31,  32,  33,  34, 
35,  3<>,  37.  41.  12,  54;  skulls. 
capacity  of,  81  :  twelve  compl< 
opinions  of,  43  ;  furnishes  no  •  I  V 
donee.  4s.  40;  large  brain  of,  ■". ,  : 

not    like   brain   Of   actual    man. 

powerful     brute-like     mn  of, 

»;o  ;  good  but  not  i  to  Bsive  muscles 
of,    60 :    oose    of.    62  :    variety    of 

Homo    sapiens,    t',:;  ;    n..    j  ■  ?or 

at    all    of    modern    man.    •;.'{  ;    imtnc- 
dlate    pred  wr    Of    modern    man, 

63  ;    mosl     important     I  g    link. 

<;s  :  Neanderthal  Mood  and  phj 
ognomy  nol  lacking  among  m 
ern     Kuropi  ans,     7i>  ;     DO  :it 

all  among  Europeans,  70  .  d<       i  I 
ants    along     l  tanube    ' all*  y,     1 
wiped    out    by    Cro  M 
quite  advanced    76;  excluded  from 
ancestry    of    the   higher    x  77. 

B2,  88,  84;  <  ontemporariei  of,  v 


366 


INDEX 


compared  with  moderns  described 
by  Haeckel,  85,  311,  312;  came 
after  modern  type,  not  before, 
305 ;  proof  not  of  evolution  but 
of   degeneration,   305,   306 

Nebular  hypothesis,  292,   293,  294 

Negro,  African,  35,  79,  311,  312 

Neumayr,   71 

Newton,    209 

Nicolle,  75 

O 

Oberkassel    skeletons,    79 

Obermaier,  on  superior  skulls  of 
earliest   human   beings,   54 

Ochoz    remains,    69 

Opossum,  a  riddle  of  evolution,  232- 
236 

Orang  of  Asia,  81 ;  syphilis  in,  130 ; 
skeleton  of,  133,  134 

Original  sin  and   science,  209 

Osborn,  ape-man  exhibit,  1,  33,  38, 
39,  40  ;  Piltdown  cranial  capacity, 
8 ;  speculations  on  two  races,  11, 
12,  13  :  exclusion  of  Virchow,  17, 
18 ;  Trinil  monster,  19 ;  demon- 
stration of  "progressive"  increase, 
20 ;  confession  concerning  man's 
ancestor,  21  ;  Trinil  doubts  and 
certainties,  22,  23,  24;  mystery 
of  Trinil  pedigree,  25,  26 ;  no 
reference  to  Trinil  secrecy,  27, 
28  ;  discretion  and  silence,  28  ;  on 
brain  pans,  29,  30 ;  the  missing 
link,  37 ;  rejection  of  Ranke,  38, 
39  ;  "most  important  and  complete 
work  since  Darwin's  Descent  of 
Man,"  42;  rejection  of  Rauff,  43; 
difficulty  with  Schwalbe,  45  ;  diffi- 
culty with  Kramberger,  46 ;  dif- 
ficulty with  Galley  Hill,  42;  diffi- 
culty with  poetic  justice,  50 ;  en- 
dorsement of  Knight,  55 ;  recon- 
struction of  entire  Neanderthal 
skeleton,  59  ;  contradiction  of  self, 
62,  63,  66 ;  omission  of  side  view 
and  top  view  of  Gibraltar  skull,  65  ; 
instance  of  certainty,  66 ;  returns 
to  missing  link,  68  ;  wiping  Nean- 
derthals out,  69 ;  surprising  con- 
tradiction, 74 ;  seventeen  dilem- 
mas, 76,  77,  78 ;  chopping  down 
man's  ancestral  tree,  81.  82  ;  dedi- 
cation of  Abbe  Henri  Breuil,  96 ; 
use  of  small  type,  153 ;  omission 
of  facts,  161-162 ;  conundrums, 
162-165  ;  monkey  men,  204  ;  letter 
to  editor,  186,  187,  248,  249,  250; 
quoting  Dr.  Walsh,  249 ;  conceal- 
ing rebuke,  250 ;  making  a  case, 
251  :  does  not  answer,  257 :  ape- 
men  busts  in  text  books,  193,  248, 
249;  on  bull  seals,  263,  264,  265, 
266 ;  on  art  of  cave  man,  307,  308, 
309 

Owen,  318 


Palaeontology,  a  vassal  of  the  Dar- 
winistic-Haeckelistic  theory,  64 ; 
begins  with  the  unknown,  85 


Pangloss,  206 

Pasteur,  97 ;  on  science  and  faith, 
99,  100 ;  a  pioneer,  209  ;  religious 
fear  of  science,  324,  325 

Pauly,  120 

Penck,  on  post-glacial  period,  74 ; 
on  age  of  North  America,  289 

Peyrony,  69 

Pfeffer,   203 

Pharyngeal  arches  and  clefts,  112 

Philosophers'    skulls,    83 

Piltdown  skull,  1 ;  Piltdown  man,  3, 
4,  12,  13,  14;  hoax,  6,  10,  11; 
gravel,  age  of,  7 ;  superiority  of, 
19,  26 ;  exposure,  24 ;  enlarged, 
31 ;  wreckage  of  Piltdown  man, 
40 ;  damage  offset,  40 ;  mutilated, 
42  ;  ready  to  dive,  85  ;  diving,  85  ; 
without  supra-orbital  ridges,  305  ; 
in  war,  331 

Pithecanthropus  allalus,  Haeckel, 
52  ;  Pithecanthropus  erectus,  52 

Placental  difficultiees,  135,  136 

Plate,  120,  204 ;  on  spontaneous 
generation,    269 

Poe,  Edgar  Allan,  and  finger  prints, 
94 

Poljansky,  on  Indian  scorpion  as 
man's  ancestor,    136 

Popular  Lectures,  discrediting  sci- 
ence, 51 

Predmost  remains,  70 

Pre-human  forms,   76,  77 

Prestwich,  on  limit  of  glacial  period, 
289 

Propliopthecus,  dead  and  buried, 
81  ;  Propliopthecus  Haeckeli,  mys- 
terious disappearance  of,  153 

Prothylodates  atavus,  lost  in  the 
trees,   52 

Puydt,  de,  55 

Q 

Quaternary,    Man   appears  suddenly, 

54 
Quatrefages,    66,    120 ;    on   invention 

of  species,   161,   162 
Quina,  La,  Lady,  60 

R 

Ranke,  on  imagination  in  evolution, 
40,  41 ;  on  doubtful  honor,  44, 
120 ;  on  difference  between  man 
and    ape,    134 

Rauff,  on  age  of  Neanderthal  skull, 
43 

Reade,  on  age  of  world,  289 

Remains,    Scarcity   of,  21 

Renan,   321,    330 

Resemblances,  morphological,  re- 
garded as  analogies,  47.  112,  113, 
114,  115,  116,  117 ;  physiological, 
124,  125,  126,  127,  128,  129,  148, 
158 

Rhodesia   Man,   86,   87,    88,   89 

Ribbert,  on  appendix,  125 

Ribs,  of  gibbon,  chimpanzee,  man,  24 

Rockefeller  Institute  for  Medical 
Research,   160 


INDEX 


Romanes,    119 ;    on    incompetence   of 

survival  of  fittest,   121 
Rossle,    on    blood   reaction,   129 
Roux,  204 
Rudimentary    organs    without    value 

to   evolutionists,    124,    125 
Rutot,  19 


Sacraments,   141,   142 

Saint   Brelade   Teeth,   75,   76 

Salts,  Twelve  Earthy,   269 

Sand    storms,    30 

Savage  of  New  Britain,  versus  Brit- 
ish statesman,  32 

Schaaffhausen,  34,  36,  44,  120,  291 

Schilde,    120 

Schmidt-Jena,   84 

Schmidt,  Oscar,  on  ape  skull,  134 

Schumann,  219 

Schwalbe,  on  Piltdown  man,  8 ;  on 
Trinil  remains,  26,  29 ;  Neander- 
thal contradiction,  45  ;  on  true 
man,  50  ;  on  self-delusion,  50 ;  on 
no  trace  of  Neanderthals,  50 

Science  of  seriocomics,  83  ;  and  origi- 
nal sin,  284 

Scorpion,  Indian,  ancestor  of  pla- 
cental mammals,  including  man, 
136 

Sea    oscillations,    Confusion   due    to, 

73 

Seals,  bull,  264,  265,  266,  267 

Sera,  66 

Shakespeare,   197,   205 

Shark,  smooth  and  placenta,  135 

Shattock,  97 

Sheep,  blood  of,  128 

Sin   and   science,   209 

Sinel,  75 

Skeletons  of  great  apes  and  man, 
23  ;   see   Blood 

Skulls  of  apes,   134 

Smith,  on  Rhodesia  man,  89 

Smyth,  on  plants  before  sunlight, 
298 

Sollas,  66,   74 

Southall,   on   age   of  man,    288 

Species,  no  confounding  of,  102,  103, 
104,  105,  106,  107,  108,  ISO,  187, 
202,  231 ;  variations,  189,  190, 
191  ;  definiteness  of.  199.  200  :  in- 
compatible with  each   other,    202 

Spencer,  vanity  of,  239,  320;  on  a 
guiding  and  directing  power,  322, 
326,   327 

Sipka  jaw,  69 
Spallanzani,   261,   323 

Spontaneous  generation,  97,  201,  Zbt, 

323,  324,  325 
Springer,  197  .    „    M 

Soy  Man,  39,  54,  65,  78;  skull  No. 
2,  approach  of  to  modern  skull. 
55;  skull  No.  1,  chin  prominence 
of,  like  modern  chin,  55 ;  skele- 
tons, relative  shortness  of  fore- 
arms, 56 
Standfuss,  211 

Steinmann,  on  evolutional  despair, 
64*      on      polyphyletic      evolution, 


212  ;    on   differentiation    | 
iii;iniiiiall;i,   :;«»!! 
Strata,    age    "t    dlfll(  ':!t    t>.     !    I  in«\ 

71.    72,    7.:.    7i. 
Buares,  used  by   Huxley  and  Darwin, 

239,  240,260 
Subjective  state  of  mind, 
Sulzer,  26  i 

Sun  nnd  Stars.   Kvi<! 

Supra  orbital    rW  nnd 

Chinaman,  806 
Synthetics,  87,  88,  -  81 

Syphilis   in   monkeys  and  ap<  s,   128, 

128 


Tailless   apes   and   tailed   men,   26 

Talgal    skull,    28 

Tasinaninn    skulls,    45  ;    not   neand-  r 
t haloid,   62 

Taubach  teeth,  69 

Taylor,  204 

Tertiary    period,    no    human    remains 
whatever,    49,    B I 

Thomas.  Saint.  260,  262,  287,  822 

Thomson,    on    age   of    the    world, 

Time,    discrepancies    in,    -''.7,     I 

74,  75,  76,  286,  288    !  ".  »1 

Toes,   number  of,   28  I 

Tortoise  theorv  versus  lizard  theory, 
25,  143 

Trinil    Ape-Man,    Reconstruction    of, 
19;    a   stepping   stone,    20;    multi- 
plication   of   into   a    rae.>.    2" 
boru's   conundrum.    20.    21  ;    an 
possible    compound,    2 
of,    23,    24,    25;    in    more    trout 
49,    82 

Tschermak,    '.»7,    191 

Turkev,  an   enigma  <»f  evolution.  242, 
243,  24  I,   245,  246 

Turtou,   304 

U 

Uhlenhutb,  <>r  blood  reaction,  l. 
Uncritical   Public,   50,   51 

Ungulates   from    nou-ungulatts.    178, 
179 


Vegetation,  29S 

Verne,  208 

Vertebra?,     Dorsal,     <>f     man,     cninv 

pansee,  gorilla,  gibbon.  84 
Verworn,   204 
Vines,   on    fixed    purpose   i"    nature, 

121 
Vlrchow.    on    missing    link,    l .  : 

Trinil    ape,    28;    on   skull    i 

marck   and  in 

derthal   «-;  all     I ' 
Vogt,  on  embryos,   114,   l 
Von  Bauer,  120 
Von   Hartmann,   120 
Von   Wettstein,  212 

W 

Walkhoff,  on  bones  of  man  and  apes. 
133,    184 


368 


INDEX 


Wallace,  on  Haeckel,  160;  on  pain, 
161;  on  Huxley,  160 ;  on  man, 
305      on  God,  305,   31o,  319,   320 

Walsh,'   on    Osborn    251-   on    art   of 

wSmanrnon30pntdo°;n3a0n8d  Eskimo 
skulls    17;   on    fantastic   pedigree, 
41-    on    Neanderthal    acrobat,    4o ; 
on     correcting     zoological     errors, 
47-    on   man's  sudden  appearance, 
54 '•     on     Heidelberg    and    Eskimo 
jaws,   62;   on   obliterations   of   ap- 
pendix      125;      on      reactions      of 
SionkJv  blood    129;  on  fossil  ants, 
212,    213 ;    definition    of   evolution, 
214!  215,  216  ;  on  Augustine,  259 
Water,  Evidence  of,  2yt>,  zvi 
Water'ston,    on   PUtdown   noax,   10 
We,  ourselvees,   208,   209,   210 
Weedas  of  Ceylon,  The,  small  skulls 

of,   31  ;    degenerates,    307 
Weimar  jaw,  69 
Weismann,   119,  204 

Weiss,  68  ,  t-xo 

Weldon,    on    Huxley's    anxiety,    118, 

Wells,  gratuities  of,  51 ;  big  jump 
of  73;  in  blird  staggers  of  sci- 
ence 86;  falls  down  ninety-six 
Steps,  137,  138 ;  warned  by  Lan- 
kester,  139;  bone  reverence  of, 
139  ;  on  ancestral  beast,  139,  140  , 
falls  up  ninety-six  steps,  140  ,  on 
rotten  meat  eaters  141 ;  on  bad 
smells  141 ;  on  exalted  ape,  14^, 
on   wild   women,    142;   on   hootch, 


144  ;  on  fatted  fowls  of  Old  Testa- 
ment, 144;  on  soulless  THING, 
271  •  Haeckel's  influence  on,  272, 
274  :  influence  on  newspaper  read- 
ers,'  275;   see   Wallace,   160 

Whales,  evoluted  backward,  181, 
182,    183  .  . 

Wheeler,  on  ants  in  amber,  ^01 

Wigand,  120 

Wild  women,  influence  of  on  exalted 

apes,   142 
Wilde,  15,_16 

Williamson,'  on  Huxley's  weakness, 
161 ;  on  fossil  complications,   ISO, 

Wilson,   15,   110,   201 

Winch  ell,  on  age  of  Mississippi,  290 

Windle,  on  Augustinian  evolution, 
261 ;  on  creation  of  sentient  Me, 
300 

Wolff,  120,  203  mmtm 

Woodruff,  on  vegetation  before  sun- 
light, 298  ..         - 

Woodward,  on  brain  capacity  or 
Piltdown  man,  6;  attempt  to  ex- 
plain elusiveness  of  missing  links, 
87,    88,    89  .  ,  .     AO 

Wright,  on  age  of  glacial  epoch,  48, 
74,  288,  289 

Z 

Zoologists,  Corrections  of  classifica- 
tions of,  45,  46,  47 


